50. Christological Predication: 'God Was Made Man' and 'Man Was Made God'

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Article 6: Whether ‘God Was Made Man’ Is True #

The apparent objections:

• Man is a substance; to become a man is to come to be simpliciter (simply, absolutely)
• God cannot come to be simply, as He is eternal and unchanging (Malachi 3:6)
• Change involves becoming other; God does not change
• Therefore, it seems false that God was made man

Thomas’s solution:

• The Son of God did not come to be simpliciter; He already existed eternally
• What came to be is human nature in a pre-existing suppositum (divine person)
• This is coming to be secundum quid (in a certain respect), not simpliciter
• The statement is true because it designates the taking on of human nature by the eternal person

Article 7: Whether ‘Man Was Made God’ Is True #

The apparent objections:

• If God was made man, then man was made God (by symmetry)
• Gregory Nazianzen speaks of man becoming God (Deificatus) as God became man (Human Naptus)
• Making is more properly attributed to human nature than to God

Thomas’s three senses:

1. Absolute sense (false): This would mean either man or God comes into being
2. Compositional sense (true): It was brought about that man is God and God is man
3. Proper sense (requires qualification): The making must terminate to what properly undergoes making

Why the asymmetry:

• ‘God was made man’ is properly true: the making terminates to human nature itself (what is properly made)
• ‘Man was made God’ is not properly true: the making would terminate to the suppositum, which is eternal

Key Arguments #

The Distinction Between Simpliciter and Secundum Quid #

Simpliciter (absolutely, without qualification):

• When my parents generated me, I came to be simpliciter
• When I learned geometry, I did not come to be simpliciter

Secundum quid (in a certain respect, with qualification):

• When I learned geometry, I came to be geometry (in a certain respect)
• When I grew to 5'10", I came to be 5'10" (in a certain respect)
• The Son of God came to be a man secundum quid, not simpliciter

The Suppositum vs. Nature Distinction #

• A suppositum is an individual substance that subsists; the ‘who’ (who Christ is)
• A nature is the essence or whatness; the ‘what’ (what Christ is)
• Human nature came to be in the pre-existing suppositum of the divine person
• The suppositum itself did not begin to be

Change and Relative Predication #

Change requires alteration in the subject itself. However:

• Relative predications can become true through change in something else, not the subject
• Example: I can become ‘shorter than my son’ through no change in myself, only his growth
• God is made ‘a refuge’ for us without change in God; through change in created things
• To be man belongs to God by reason of union, which is a relation
• Therefore, God becomes man without undergoing change itself, only through the change of human nature

Material vs. Formal Predication #

• Subject holds materially: it stands for the suppositum (the underlying ‘who’)
• Predicate holds formally: it stands for the nature or property signified
• In ‘God was made man’: the subject ‘God’ holds materially for the suppositum; the predicate ‘man’ holds formally for human nature
• In ‘man was made God’: the subject ‘man’ holds materially for the suppositum (which is eternal); therefore the statement is false

Important Definitions #

Suppositum (Latin: suppositum): The individual substance that subsists by itself; in Christ, the eternal person of the Son of God. Stands for the ‘who’ rather than the ‘what.’

Nature (Latin: natura): The essence or whatness of a thing; in Christ, both divine nature and human nature are present in one suppositum.

Coming to be simply (venire ad esse simpliciter): The suppositum itself begins to exist.

Coming to be in a certain respect (venire ad esse secundum quid): A new property, nature, or accident begins to belong to an existing suppositum.

Union (unio): The relationship by which human nature is joined to the divine person; a relation rather than an absolute property.

Determination (determinatio): A qualifying phrase (like ‘according as he is man’) that specifies which nature or aspect is being discussed, shifting reference from suppositum to nature.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Geometric Analogy #

Berquist uses a line analogy to illustrate the suppositum taking on new nature:

• One line exists eternally with an endpoint
• A second line is drawn to that same endpoint
• The endpoint does not come to be when the second line is drawn; it was always there
• Yet we can say the endpoint ‘becomes’ the endpoint of the second line
• Similarly: the eternal suppositum (Son of God) does not come to be when it takes on human nature, yet we can truly say God became man

The Geometry/Whiteness Example #

• When I come to school, did I come to be? No—only secundum quid (in a certain respect)
• When I learned geometry, I didn’t come to be; I came to be geometry
• I already existed before learning geometry; therefore I came to be secundum quid, not simpliciter
• Similarly, the Son came to be a man, but not to be simpliciter

The Height Comparison #

• I am taller than my son; then through his growth, I become shorter than him
• This change in my status occurs through no change in me, but through change in another
• Similarly, God becomes ‘a refuge’ for us through change in created things, not in God

The Socrates Example #

• ‘Socrates was made white’ (true)
• ‘This white thing was made a man’ (false)
• The subject holds materially for the suppositum (Socrates); the predicate holds formally for the accident (whiteness)
• Just as we cannot say the white thing was made a man, we cannot properly say man was made God, because the suppositum is not created

Questions Addressed #

Q1: How can ‘God was made man’ be true if God cannot come into being?

A: The suppositum (the eternal person of the Son) does not come into being. Rather, human nature comes to be in that pre-existing suppositum. Thus God comes to be man secundum quid, not simpliciter.

Q2: Why can we say ‘God was made man’ but not simply ‘man was made God’?

A: ‘God was made man’ is true because the making terminates to human nature itself, which properly undergoes making. ‘Man was made God’ is not properly true because the making would have to terminate to the suppositum (the divine person), which is eternal and therefore cannot be made.

Q3: How does the union of the two natures avoid implying change in God?

A: The union is a relation. Relations can become newly true of something without that thing undergoing change. Just as I become ‘shorter than my son’ through no change in myself, God becomes ‘a man’ through the taking on of human nature by His eternal person, with no change in God Himself.

Q4: In what sense can both statements be true?

A: In the compositional sense: it was brought about (factum est) that man is God and God is man. This meaning emphasizes the union itself rather than the becoming of either nature. But this is not the proper sense of these ways of speaking.

Notable Quotes #

“To become a man is to come to be simply in all those in which human nature begins to be in a suppositum, de novo creato. But did the Son of God come to be? He already was, right? Before he became man.”

“God is said to be made man from this, that human nature began to be in the suppositum of the divine nature, pre-existing from eternity.”

“[I]n such things is not necessary that everything that is said to come to be is changed, because this is able to happen through the change of another.”

“[T]o be a man belongs to God by reason of the union, which is a certain relation, and therefore, to be a man is said newly of God without his change, through the change of human nature.”

“The term placed in the subject holds materially… but placed in the predicate, it’s held formally. That is for the nature signified.”

“[W]hen it is said that man was made God, the becoming is not attributed to human nature, but to the suppositum of human nature, which is God from eternity. And therefore, it does not belong to it to become God.”

“[T]his is true, that God was made man. But this is false, that man was made God.”

“[E]ternal life to know you, and him whom you have sent… faith purifies reason.”