243

CHAPTER 13
CHRIST ASSUMED THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF
HUMAN FLESH

(Referring to ancient heresies, Calvin answers Menno Simons, 1-2)

1. PROOF OF CHRIST’S TRUE MANHOOD

The divinity of Christ has been proved elsewhere by clear and firm
testimonies. f370 Hence, unless I am mistaken, it would be superfluous to
discuss it again here. It remains, then, for us to see how, clothed with our
flesh, he fulfilled the office of Mediator. Indeed, the genuineness of his
human nature was impugned long ago by both the Manichees and the
Marcionites. f371 The Marcionites fancied Christ’s body a mere
appearance, while the Manichees dreamed that he was endowed with
heavenly flesh. But many strong testimonies of Scripture stand against
both. For the blessing is promised neither in heavenly seed nor in a
phantom of a man, but in the seed of Abraham and Jacob [<011203> Genesis
12:3;17:2,7; 18:18; 22:18;26:4]. Nor is an eternal throne promised to a man
of air, but to the Son of David and the fruit of his loins [<194506> Psalm
45:6;132:11]. Hence, when he was manifested in the flesh, he was called
“the Son of David and of Abraham” [<400101> Matthew 1:1]. This is not
only because he was born of the virgin’s womb, although created in the air,
but because, according to Paul’s interpretation, he “was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh” [<450103> Romans 1:3 p.]. Similarly, the
same apostle in another passage teaches that he descended from the Jews
[<450905> Romans 9:5]. For this reason the Lord himself, not content with
the name “man,” frequently calls himself also “Son of man,” meaning
thereby to explain more clearly that he is a man truly begotten of human
seed. Since the Holy Spirit has often declared this plain fact by many
instruments and with very great diligence and simplicity, who would have
supposed that any would be so shameless as to dare besmirch it with
deceptions? Yet we have other testimonies ready at hand, if we should
want to amass more of them. One of these is Paul’s statement: “God sent
 244
<480404>
forth his Son, born of woman” [ Galatians 4:4]. And there are
innumerable other evidences that show him to have been subject to hunger,
thirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. From these numerous
testimonies we must choose those particular ones which serve to edify our
minds in true confidence. Such are these: when it is said that he did not so
concern himself with angels [<580216> Hebrews 2:16] as to take their nature,
but took ours, that “in flesh and blood …he might through death destroy
him who had the power of death” [ <580214> Hebrews 2:14 p.]. Another: we
are reckoned his brethren by the benefit of association with him [cf.
<580211>
Hebrews 2:11]. Again: “He had to be made like his brethren …so
that he might be a merciful and faithful intercessor.” [<580217> Hebrews 2:17
p.] “We have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
infirmities.” [<580415> Hebrews 4:15a.] And like passages, What we touched
on a little while ago pertains to this same point: f372 the sins of the world
had to be expiated in our flesh, as Paul clearly declares [<450803> Romans
8:3]. Surely, for this reason, whatever the Father bestowed upon Christ
pertains to us because he is the Head “from whom the whole body, knit
together through joints,” grows into one [<490416> Ephesians 4:16]. Yes,
otherwise this statement will not fit. “The Spirit was given to him [Christ]
without measure” [<430334> John 3:34 p.] so that “we should all receive from
his fullness” [John l:16 p.]. Nothing is more absurd than that God should
be enriched in his essence by some accidental gift! For this reason, also,
Christ himself says in another place, “For their sake I sanctify myself”
[<431719> John 17:19].

2. AGAINST THE OPPONENTS OF CHRIST’S TRUE MANHOOD

They grossly distort the passages that they put forward to confirm their
error. And they accomplish nothing with the trifling subtleties by which
they try to do away with what I have already adduced. Marcion imagines
that Christ put on a phantom instead of a body because Paul elsewhere
says that Christ was “made in the likeness of man, …being found in
fashion as a man” [<502007> Philippians 2:7-8, KJV/RV]. But he wholly
overlooks Paul’s intention there: Paul does not mean to teach what sort of
body Christ assumes. Rather, although Christ could justly have shown
forth his divinity, he manifested himself as but a lowly and despised man.
For, to exhort us to submission by his example, he showed that although
 245
he was God and could have set forth his glory directly to the world he gave
up his right and voluntarily “emptied himself.” He took the image of a
servant, and content with such lowness, allowed his divinity to be hidden
by a “veil of flesh” [cf. <501405> Philippians 2:5-7]. there Paul is really
teaching not what Christ was, but how he conducted himself. From the
whole context we may easily infer that Christ emptied himself in a nature
truly human. For what does “being found in fashion as a man” mean
[<502308> Philippians 2:8], save that for a time the divine glory did not shine,
but only human likeness was manifest in a lowly and abased condition.
Peter’s statement that “Christ was put to death in the flesh, but made alive
in the spirit” [<600318> 1 Peter 3:18 p.] would not otherwise make sense
unless the Son of God in human nature had been weak. Paul explains this
more clearly, declaring that Christ suffered according to the infirmity of the
flesh [<471304> 2 Corinthians 13:4]. Christ is expressly said to have obtained
new glory after he had humbled himself. Herein lies his exaltation. This
could not very well apply except to a man endowed with human body and
soul.
Man forged him a body of air, because Christ is called “the Second Adam
of heaven, heavenly” [<461547> 1 Corinthians 15:47]. But in this passage the
apostle is introducing no heavenly essence of Christ’s body, but a spiritual
force that, poured out by Christ, quickens us. Now, as we have seen, Peter
and Paul separate that force from Christ’s flesh. Rather, the doctrine
concerning Christ’s flesh that flourishes among the orthodox is remarkably
buttressed by this passage. For unless Christ had one bodily nature with
us, the reasoning that Paul pursues with such vehemence would be
meaningless: “If Christ arose, we also shall arise from the dead; if we do
not arise, neither did Christ arise” [<461512> 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 p.,
substance]. Whatever the subtleties with which the ancient Manichees or
their modern disciples try to evade [this proof], they do not succeed.
Their nonsense, that Christ is called “Son of Man” in so far as he was
promised to men, f373 is a base evasion. For it is plain that in Hebrew idiom
true man is called “son of man.” Now, Christ undoubtedly retained this
phrase of his own language. Also, the commonly accepted understanding
of “Son of Adam” ought to be beyond controversy. Not to go too far
afield, the Eighth Psalm, which the apostles apply to Christ, will amply
suffice: “What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that
 246
<190804>
thou visitest him?” [ Psalm 8:4; <580206> Hebrews 2:6]. Christ’s true
humanity is expressed by this figure. For even though he was not
immediately begotten of a mortal father, his origin derived from Adam.
Otherwise the passage that I have already cited would not stand: “Christ
shared in flesh and blood” that he might gather his children unto himself to
obey God [<580214> Hebrews 2:14 p.]. In these words Christ is clearly
declared to be comrade and partner in the same nature with us. In this
sense he also says that “the Author of sanctification and those who are
sanctified have all one origin” [<580211> Hebrews 2:11a]. The context shows
that this expression refers to the fellowship of nature, for he immediately
adds: “That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren”
[<580211> Hebrews 2:11b]. For if he had previously said that believers are of
God, in such great dignity what reason would there have been for shame?
But because Christ of his boundless grace joins himself to base and ignoble
men, it is said that “he is not ashamed” [<580211> Hebrews 2:11b].
Moreover, baseless is their objection that in this way the impious would
be Christ’s brethren. For we know that the children of God are not born of
flesh and blood [cf. <430113> John 1:13] but of the Spirit through faith.
Hence flesh alone does not make the bond of brotherhood. Even though the
apostle assigns to believers alone the honor of being one with Christ, it
does not follow that unbelievers cannot be born of the same source. For
example, when we say that Christ was made man that he might make us
children of God, this expression does not extend to all men. For faith
intervenes, to engraft us spiritually into the body of Christ.
They also bunglingly stir up contention over the expression “first-born.”
They allege that Christ should have been born of Adam at the very
beginning, to “be the first-born among the brethren” [<450829> Romans 8:29
p.]. “First-born” here refers not to age but to degree of honor and loftiness
of power!
Even less plausible is their babbling that Christ assumed human, not
angelic, nature [<580216> Hebrews 2:16], meaning that he received humankind
into grace. To enhance the honor that Christ deigned to give us, Paul
compares us with the angels, to whom in this respect we were preferred. If
we carefully weigh Moses’ testimony — where he says that the seed of
the woman will crush the serpent’s head [ <010315> Genesis 3:15] — the
controversy will be completely resolved. For the statement there concerns
 247
not only Christ but the whole of mankind. Since we must acquire victory
through Christ, God declares in general terms that the woman’s offspring
is to prevail over the devil. Hence it follows that Christ was begotten of
mankind, for in addressing Eve it was God’s intention to raise her hope
that she should not be overwhelmed with despair.
(The human descent and true humanity of Christ, 3-4)

3. CHRIST’S DESCENT THROUGH THE VIRGIN MARY: AN

ABSURDITY EXPOSED
Our opponents both foolishly and wickedly entangle in allegories those
testimonies wherein Christ is called the seed of Abraham and the fruit of
David’s loins. For if the term “seed” had been allegorically intended, Paul
surely would not have remained silent about this when he affirmed, clearly
and unfiguratively, that there are not many redeemers among the children
of Abraham, but only one, Christ [<480316> Galatians 3:16]. Of the same
stuff is their pretense that Christ was called “son of David” only because
he had been promised and at last was revealed in his own time
[<450103> Romans 1:3]. For when Paul named him “Son of David,” and then
immediately added “according to the flesh,” he surely designates his human
nature by this. Thus in the ninth chapter, after calling Christ “blessed
God,” he asserts separately that he descended from the Jews “according to
the flesh” [<450905> Romans 9:5]. Now, if he had not truly been begotten of
the seed of David, what will be the point of this expression that he is “the
fruit of her womb” [cf. <420142> Luke 1:42]? What is this promise, “From
your loins will descend one who will remain upon your throne” [cf.
<19D211>
Psalm 132:11 p.; also, <100712> 2 Samuel 7:12; <440230> Acts 2:30]?
Now they sophistically disport themselves over Matthew’s version of the
genealogy of Christ. Matthew does not list Mary’s ancestors, but
Joseph’s [<400116> Matthew 1:16]. Still, because he is mentioning something
well known at the time, he considers it sufficient to show that Joseph
sprang from the seed of David, since it was clear enough that Mary came
from the same family. Luke emphasizes this even more, teaching that the
salvation provided by Christ is common to all mankind. For Christ, the
Author of salvation, was begotten of Adam, the common father of us all
[<420338> Luke 3:38]. I admit that one can gather from the genealogy that
 248
Christ was the son of David solely in so far as he was begotten of the
virgin. But in order to disguise their error — to prove that Christ took his
body out of nothing — the new Marcionites too haughtily contend that
women are “without seed.” f374 Thus they overturn the principles of
nature.
But this is not a theological issue, and such is the futility of the reasons
they bring forward that these can be refuted without trouble. Accordingly,
I shall not touch upon matters that belong to philosophy and medicine. It
will be enough to refute the objections that they derive from Scripture,
namely: Aaron and Jehoiada took wives from the tribe of Judah
[<020623> Exodus 6:23; <142211> 2 Chronicles 22:11], and so the distinction of
tribes would then have been confused if women possessed the seed of
generation. But it is sufficiently well known that descent is reckoned by
the male line as far as the political order is concerned; yet this preferential
position of the male sex does not gainsay the fact that the woman’s seed
must share in the act of generation.
This solution also extends to all genealogies. Often when Scripture sets out
a list of human beings, it names only the males. Must we then say that
women are nothing? Why, even children know that women are included
under the term “men”! Women are said to bear children to their husbands
because the family name always rests in the possession of the males. Now
as the superiority of the male sex is conceded in the fact that children are
reckoned noble or ignoble from their father’s status, conversely, in slavery,
“the offspring follows the womb,” as lawyers say. f375 From this we shall
have to infer that the offspring is engendered from the mother’s seed; for a
long time it has been the common custom of nations to call mothers
“engenderers.” f376 And this agrees with God’s law, which would otherwise
wrongly forbid the marriage of a maternal uncle with his niece because
there would then be no consanguinity. Also, it would have been right for a
man to marry his maternal half sister, provided she were begotten of
another father. But while I admit that a passive force is ascribed to women,
I reply that the same thing is indiscriminately said of women as of men.
For Christ himself is not said to have been made by woman, but from
woman [<480404> Galatians 4:4]. Some of their tribe, however, casting shame
aside, too wantonly ask whether we mean that Christ was engendered of
 249
f377
the virgin’s menstrual seed. In return I shall ask them whether he did
not unite with his mother’s blood — which they will have to admit.
Therefore, it is readily inferred from Matthew’s words that because Christ
was begotten of Mary, he was engendered from her seed, just as when
Boaz is said to have been begotten of Rahab [<400105> Matthew 1:5] a
similar generation is meant. And Matthew does not here describe the virgin
as a channel through which Christ flowed. Rather, he differentiates this
wonderful manner of generation from the common sort in stating that
through her Christ was begotten of the seed of David. In the same way
that Isaac was begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, Joseph of Jacob,
Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother. For the Evangelist so
arranges the order of his words. Meaning to prove that Christ took his
origin from David, he was satisfied with this one thing: Christ was
begotten of Mary. From this it follows that he took it as generally
acknowledged that Mary was related to Joseph. f378

4. TRUE MAN — AND YET SINLESS! TRUE MAN —

AND YET ETERNAL GOD!
The absurdities with which they wish to weigh us down are stuffed with
childish calumnies. They consider it shameful and dishonorable to Christ if
he were to derive his origin from men, for he could not be exempted from
the common rule, which includes under sin all of Adam’s offspring without
exception. But the comparison that we read in Paul readily disposes of this
difficulty: “As sin came in …through one man, and death through sin …so
through the righteousness of one man grace abounded” [<450512> Romans
5:12,18,15 p.]. Another comparison of Paul’s agrees with this: “The first
Adam was of the earth, an earthly and natural man, the Second of the
heaven, heavenly” [<461547> 1 Corinthians 15:47 p.]. The apostle teaches the
same thing in another passage, that Christ was sent “in the likeness of
sinful flesh” to satisfy the law [<450803> Romans 8:3-4]. Thus, so skillfully
does he distinguish Christ from the common lot that he is true man but
without fault and corruption. But they babble childishly: if Christ is free
from all spot, and through the secret working of the Spirit was begotten of
the seed of Mary, then woman’s seed is not unclean, but only man’s. For
we make Christ free of all stain not just because he was begotten of his
mother without copulation with man, but because he was sanctified by the
 250
Spirit that the generation might be pure and undefiled as would have been
true before Adam’s fall. And this remains for us an established fact:
whenever Scripture calls our attention to the purity of Christ, it is to be
understood of his true human nature, for it would have been superfluous to
say that God is pure. Also, the sanctification of which John, chapter 17,
speaks would have no place in divine nature [<431719> John 17:19]. Nor do
we imagine that Adam’s seed is twofold, even though no infection came to
Christ. For the generation of man is not unclean and vicious of itself, but is
so as an accidental quality arising from the Fall. No wonder, then, that
Christ, through whom integrity was to be restored, was exempted from
common corruption. They thrust upon us as something absurd the fact
that if the Word of God became flesh, then he was confined within the
narrow prison of an earthly body. This is mere impudence! For even if the
Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one
person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something
marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that,
without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go
about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the
world even as he had done from the beginning!