Fullness Received and Returned: Trinity and Participation in Jonathan Edwards

Appendix 5: Genus Maiestaticum

Appendix 5: Genus Maiestaticum Genus Maiestaticum Largely a development of Cyrillian Christology, the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, variously termed the communication of idioms, attributes, or properties, serves to clarify the relations between the natures in the person of Christ.1 While the subsequent Western tradition took over the patristic antidosis idiomata via John of Damascus under the term communicatio idiomatum, distinctive emphases among the Latin, Reformed, and Lutheran traditions are evident despite their common lineage. Postmedieval Elaboration of the COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM Thomas Aquinas worked out precise, second-order linguistic rules of predication for the one hypostasis of Christ.2 The sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury Lutherans systematically expanded the communicatio into three genera.3 Firstly, the attributive genus (idiomaticum or idiopoieticon) attributes the properties of both natures to one person. Secondly, in the majestic genus (auchematicum or maiestaticum) the divine attributes are directly communicated to the human nature. Thirdly, the official (operationum or apoteslematicum) understands the two natures to operate distinctly but in communion with each other in the oikonomia.4 To this triad, the seventeenth-century Giessen and Tübingen Lutherans would add a fourth kenotic genus (tapeinoticum or kenoticum), where human properties are communicated to the divine nature. Since the divine apatheia was axiomatic for both the earlier Lutheran and Reformed scholastics, the genus tapeinoticum was denied. The Reformed theologians embraced the attributive and official genera but rejected the genus maiestaticum.5 With the medievals and the Lutherans, they also affirmed the communication of gifts (communicatio gratiarum or charismatum). Under this doctrine, Jesus received the grace of headship (gratia capitis), and was thus eminently and uniquely exalted; through Jesus, the saints are in turn proportionally glorified.6 This, however, was not listed as a genus under the communicatio idiomatum by the Lutherans since no real communication of inherent properties was involved, but only an infusion of created gifts into the assumed human nature.7 375 What Does the GENUS MAIESTATICUM Mean? In continuity with Chalcedon, Reformed and Lutheran theologians confessed that the natures underwent no essential change in the incarnation.8 Even so, both parties were adamant that the human nature was elevated and received some form of communication from the deity.9 The crux of the controversy was the kind of communication received by the assumed nature. For the Lutherans, this meant the genus maiestaticum, to which the Reformed countered vociferously. Both parties invoked the Fathers, particularly John of Damascus, for the justification or rejection of this genus.10 Scholastic Reformed theologians accepted the communicatio idiomatum as interpreted in concreto, but not in abstracto, as did the Lutherans.11 Yet, it cannot be denied that the Fathers spoke concretely of the deification of the Word’s flesh.12 Still, what is communicated to the human nature? In What Way Does the Human Nature Participate in the Divine Attributes? If the communio naturarum is regarded as mutual fellowship (koinonia) between the natures that results in the genus maiestaticum, the latter may then be conceived of as a unilateral penetration (penetratio) of the human nature or the mutual action between the natures.13 The idea of penetratio, however, seems to posit a distinction without difference, as perichoresis is none other than inexistence or interpenetration.14 But if reciprocal penetration is read as mutual action upon each other, this would tend to nestorianize the natures. It is no wonder that a stream within the Reformed tradition emphasized a mediate union and downplayed the iron-fire analogy.15 If, however, the notion of the penetration of nature includes the permeation or diffusion of a nature’s properties, the genus maiestaticum is nothing else but one side of the communio naturarum.16 Of course, if the communio is no different from the communicatio, then human attributes should be transferred to the divine as well, since the interpenetration of natures is reciprocal.17 But if the divine cannot undergo passio, there is no mutual communicatio, just as fire heats iron without undergoing change.18 In this case, the communio naturarum—being identical to the genus maiestaticum—becomes meaningless shorn of the idea of joint participation. Furthermore, this notion of the communicatio as diffusion does not seem to be supported by the Lutherans since they, following the Fathers, rejected any 376 | Fullness Received and Returned notion of a physical infusion of the divine attributes into the human nature.19 Tied to this is the denial that the humanity of Christ could own the...