Chapter Two
The Incarnation: The Union of Natures

    1. We ought to consider three points about the incarnate Word, namely, the union of natures, the plenitude of gifts, and the suffering of the Passion for the redemption of mankind. In regard to the union of natures we should consider these three points in order to understand the mystery of the Incarnation, namely, its operation, mode, and time.
   In the beginning of this chapter, St. Bonaventure states what he will examine on the Incarnation in this and later chapters of this section, that is: the union of natures in a hypostatic, or personal, union; the plenitude of gifts given to man and creation through the Incarnation; and lastly the suffering of the Passion for the redemption of mankind. Redemption is a process of restoration wherein there is a reversal of the effects of the fall. Since the end result of the fall is death and dissolution, to reverse the process, Christ had to suffer and die as man. He did this so that He could stop the process of dissolution at its end point, that is at the point of death, from having an everlasting effect. St. Bonaventure promises to discuss the mystery of the Incarnation through its operation, mode, and time, that is, the power and means of the Incarnation, the method of the Incarnation taking place, and St. Bonaventure's understanding of why the Incarnation took place at a certain time.

    2. According to the Christian faith, we should hold these truths in regard to the operation of the Incarnation: that the Incarnation is the operation of the Trinity through whom the assumption of flesh by the Deity and union of the Deity with the flesh occurred in such a way that the assumption involves not only a sensible flesh but also a rational spirit with its vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual powers, and also in such a way that there is union not in the union of nature but of person, not of a human person but a divine person, not of the assumed but of the assuming, not of any person but the person of the Word alone. Such is the union that whatever is said of the Son of God, may be said of the Son of man, and conversely, with the exception of those terms in which the union of the divine and human is expressed or absence [of human personality] is implied.
    The Incarnation is the assumption of human nature by a divine person. It is a hypostastic union, not a natural union. This means that a person within the Trinity took upon Himself human nature and joined it to His person, so that the same person who is eternally God and without change took upon Himself the nature of man and which is with change. The same person is both God, eternally existent and ever the same, and man: one person and not two. The person took upon Himself all that a man would have, that is, an intellect, a soul, and a body. The body is described by St. Bonaventure as sensible flesh, because it is through our bodies that our senses are active. The senses are used to examine and interact with material bodies. As a man, the divine person also assumed a rational spirit (or soul) which has vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual powers. The vegetative aspect of the soul follows all those activities which are at the lowest levels of life, that is: nutrition and reproduction. It is called vegetative because both of these functions are found in the lowest levels of life including that of vegetation or plants. The sensitive soul is that which all animals possess: the ability to use senses in order to discriminate and bring about an action, and it is an animal because it is animated. The intellectual powers of the soul are those which house the reasoning ability of man, that is, his imaginative and creative side which gives him the ability of abstraction, speech, and creation. In the Incarnation it must be said that the person who assumed human nature assumed all that which is normal within a human person, which includes: a spirit (or intellect), a soul (that which animates), and a body. However these aspects of human nature which were assumed by the divine person were not aspects of another person (that is, making the Incarnation two persons), but rather, the manifestation of the human nature is found within the divine person. Thus, it must be said, a higher hypostasis can be joined with a lower nature, and give that nature a means of manifesting itself without the need of a hypostasis of its own order. For example, it would thus be free to be said that a human person assumes animal nature: the human person manifests the animal nature which is assumed, and there is no need for an animal hypostasis to be used to manifest that animal nature, for the human hypostasis is greater than an animal hypostasis and thus can take the place of the animal hypostasis. Hence, in one sense, a human person is himself a hypostatic union.
    The Incarnation is said to be a union not in the union of nature but of person, that is, the Incarnation is a union where two natures are joined together in one person, and it is not where two natures join together to make one nature. Both natures are left intact within the process of the Incarnation. If it were to be said that the union was natural instead of hypostatic, it would have to be said that either 1) both natures were changed into a third composite nature which would be neither one nor the other, or 2) one of the natures was annihilated in the process of the Incarnation. However, since the divine nature is without change, there could be no production of a third nature, and since the Incarnation seeks to free creation through human nature, if human nature was annihilated in the process of the Incarnation, there would be no Incarnation which had taken place. For the process of the Incarnation would requires the assumption of another nature, but if that other nature, when assumed, did not remain, there would be no nature which was assumed.
    Hence, in the Incarnation, there was the joining together of two natures into one person, not of a human person but a divine person, not of the assumed but of the assuming, not of any person but the person of the Word alone. That which is lower can not assume that which is higher than itself, for that which is higher would be too great for it to assume. A human person would not be able to assume divine nature, for divine nature is not able to be circumscribed by a human person. However, a divine person can assume human nature, because a divine person is able to circumscribe human nature, that is, the divine person is greater than the nature it assumes. Since it was a human nature which was assumed, it is the divine who is the assumer, and it was not the whole of the Trinity but rather the person of the Word or Logos. It is an eternal person, God the Son, who assumed human nature and made it His own. The same person who is "in the beginning with God" (John 1:1) is the same one which became man. It is the divine principle of all creation, the Logos, Who took creation upon Himself. The Logos is the one by which creation is formed, and He put that which He formed, and made it one with Himself. Since it is the same person who is both God and man, the one who is enfleshed in humanity is God Himself. He is both Son of God and Son of man. When one discusses this one person, all that is said of God is said of this person, and all that is said of man, is also said of this person. Through this, it is easy to see why Mary is called the Mother of God: for it is one person, God from eternity, who was born of Mary. It is also this same reason why the image of this person is worshipped, for it is the image which God has made for Himself which can be seen by man. "In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see." (St. John of Damascus, On The Divine Images: I:16, trans. David Anderson, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980). Thus, St. Bonaventure wrote, Such is the union that whatever is said of the Son of God, may be said of the Son of man, and conversely, with the exception of those terms in which the union of the divine and human is expressed or absence [of human personality] is implied When one is implying a discussion of the divine nature, it is only there that one can not use what is said of the human nature for the divine nature, and vice versa: for example, when the Incarnate one, Jesus Christ, is said to be hungry, it must be said of his human nature and not his divine nature that is hungry, for the divine does not hunger.

   3. The explanation of this is as follows: The operation of the Incarnation proceeds from the first principle not only in so far as it is effective but also in so far as it repairs by redeeming, satisfying, and conciliating. Because the Incarnation, in so far as it bespeaks a certain effect, stems from the first principle, which accomplishes all things by reason of its highest power and substance, power and operation are united and completely undivided in the three persons, hence it must be that the operation of the Incarnation flowed from the whole Trinity.
    In the Holy Trinity, there exists one nature, one will, and one energy. The will is energized by the divine energy and this produces the operation which creates an effect. Scripture indicates this unity in the Trinity, for example, in John 5:19, where Jesus said, "Whatever the Father does, the Son does as well." This is said in relation to ontological union of the Trinity, not within the internal relationship of the Trinity. We can see an example of this union of operation in the process of creation, where we see the Father creates all things through the Son by the Holy Spirit. In all things, the Godhead works together through its one energy to produce an effect. The operation of the Incarnation restores creation by the work of the Godhead, that is, the one energy found within the whole Trinity is used to restore creation. The specific person who is Incarnate is God the Son, but all three work through the one energy of the divinity in the Incarnation. Thus the Son seeks to bring man to the Father through the unifying power of the Holy Spirit. The Son works by joining created nature to His person; the Holy Spirit works through the power of grace which He gives to creation; the Father works by sending both the Son and the Holy Spirit to work for the redemption and deification of creation. Hence, St. Bonaventure wrote that the operation of the Incarnation proceeds from the first principle, that is, through the Godhead, not only in so far as it is effective but also in so far as it repairs by redeeming, satisfying, and conciliating, that is, not only in deifying but also in reversing the implications of the fall. The Incarnation is said to repair the fault in creation by repairing it, accomplishing the work which it needs to do to pay for its crime, and reconciliating it with God.
    Because the effect of the Incarnation stems from the first principle, from God, the power and operation which is used to do so must be from that first principle united in its essence, that is, within the Godhead. As the essence of the Godhead is one, it must be said that the operation and power which stems from this essence (for they are relation to essences, not persons) must also be one. Hence, as St. Bonaventure wrote, it must be that the operation of the Incarnation flowed from the whole Trinity, and not just one person within the Trinity.

    4. Because the Incarnation is from the first principle in so far as it repairs by redeeming and because all mankind has fallen and sinned in soul and body, the entire nature must be assumed so that all of it may be cured. And because the carnal part is better known to us and more removed from God, the operation should not be called an animation but rather an incarnation so that the selection of this method might be made clearer and a great humiliation shown and a more profound dignity demonstrated.
    Man is both a spiritual and a physical being. All that is a part of man is good, because God made it. However, in the fall, both the spiritual and the physical aspects of man have been hindered and hurt, and they need to be healed. Not only is this true in man, but this is true within creation: both spiritual and physical elements of creation have fallen. Because man is composed of both spiritual and physical elements, both spiritual and physical elements can be redeemed through man. Thus it is said that the Incarnation needs to take upon man's nature, and not just a part of man's nature, for the Incarnation seeks to save all of man, and all elements of creation which man shares. Thus, St. Bonaventure points out, the entire nature must be assumed so that all of it may be cured, that is both the entire nature of man (body and soul), and the entire nature of creation (which is found within man in microcosm). This is also true, not only of curing the fallen aspects of creation, but for deifying creation. Man is a good representation of creation, being both spiritual and physical: although God could taken on a purely spiritual or physical nature for the deification of the universe, there would not be as good a symmetrical representation by such as by becoming man, who represents in himself a microcosm of the cosmos.
    Because of the fall, the material side of man predominates his life, and so the assumption of human nature is called an incarnation, or enfleshment. By calling it an incarnation, it is seen that even the lowest and yet most known and least important aspect of man, his flesh, has been assumed by Christ. Since the Godhead is often described allegorically as spirit, by taking on flesh, God has revealed himself more fully than if He only took on a spiritual form. Hence, St. Bonaventure points out, the operation should not be called an animation but rather an incarnation so that the selection of this method might be made clearer and a great humiliation shown and a more profound dignity demonstrated. For by putting on lowly flesh, the divine side is both more visible and more hidden: more visible by assuming that which is sensual, but more hidden, because the divine side is enfleshed and "humiliated" by the flesh (because matter is further away from the divinity in ontological status than that of soul and spirit).

    5. Again, because the Incarnation is from the first principle in so far as it repairs by satisfying, and there is no satisfaction except when made by him who ought to make it can be make it, and no one ought to make it but man and no one can make it but God, it was fitting that in the satisfaction there be a concourse of both natures, namely, divine and human. And because it is impossible that divine nature should coincide with another nature as a part of a third nature and it is impossible that the divine nature go over into another nature because of the most perfect simplicity and immutability of the divine nature, divinity and humanity are not united in a unity of nature or of an accident but in a unity of person and hypostasis. And because the divine nature cannot exist in any suppositum except in its own hypostasis, this union cannot exist in the hypostasis or person of man but rather of God. Hence by this union the first principle in one and of its hypostases makes itself the suppositum of human nature, and thus there is only one personality and personal unity there, namely, on the part of the one assuming.
    Mankind, humanity-- these are words which reflect both a specific species and also a specific genus. The genus, man, is that of rational animal, so that any rational animal would be capable of being said to be man in the most precise sense. It is through a rational animal that the fall can be reversed through perfect symmetry (for a rational animal which possesses elements of all aspects of creation: intellect, soul, and body), and thus, through man that creation can be restored-- but it is also true, that it is only by the one who produced creation that creation can be restored, that is, the one who produced creation is the one who can restore that which He produced. Since it was creation which freely abandoned God, creation needs to give satisfaction for its wrongdoing. Because it is impossible without God, that is, without being healed by its creator (for it can not create that which it lost), it is only through God that creation can be healed. Thus the restoration of creation requires the participation of creation and of the creator. Therefore it is proper that God becomes a part of creation to restore creation itself, for then God will be seen as the one who truly restored creation, but nonetheless, creation itself shall join in the process of restoration, and then fulfil the requirement that creation gives proper satisfaction. This is what St. Bonaventure meant when he wrote, it was fitting that in the satisfaction there be a concourse of both natures, namely, divine and human.
    As it already has been said, it is impossible for the divine nature to change, either to become a part of a third nature, or else, lose something of itself and still be divine. Therefore, it is said that the Incarnation took place in by a specific person. However, as the divinity can only be represented by a divine person, this person must be divine. It is by this reason that one would have to say that the Incarnation took place in this format: a divine person assumed human nature, thereby making one person who is both fully God and fully man. If one were to say that the Incarnation is a human person, it would either be a rejection of a hypostatic union (for there would be two persons, not one), or else, one would have to say the absurd, which is, a human person assumed divine nature. However, how can a human person, that is, an individual representation of human nature, assume a nature which is greater than itself? The only conclusion is that which St. Bonaventure gives us, that is the first principle, God, in one and of its hypostases, or persons, makes itself the suppositum of human nature, not of a human person, and thus there is only one personality and personal unity there, namely, on the part of the one assuming, that is, of the divine person of God the Son.

    6. Lastly, because the Incarnation is from the first principle in so far as it repairs by conciliating, and in conciliating it is a mediator, and mediation properly falls to the Son of God, it follows that this is the case with the Incarnation. It is the mediator's part to be the medium between man and God, to lead man back to divine knowledge, conformity, and sonship. No one is more suitable as a medium than the person who produces and is produced, who is the middle one of the three persons. No one is more fitting to lead man back to the divine knowledge than the Word (by whom the Father expresses Himself), which is unitable to flesh, as a word is unitable to the voice. No one is more fitting to lead many back to divine conformity than He who is the image of the Father. No one is more fitting to lead man back to his adopted sonship than the natural Son. Hence no one is more fitting to become the Son of man than the Son of God.
    The Incarnation is the mediator between creation and God, or, as St. Bonaventure discusses, between man and God. This mediation is one where the mediator shares in qualities of both parties, thereby being a mediary between the two parties. For the Incarnation is God and man, and thus, is both Creator and creature. In the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it can be said that the relationship of the Father with the Son and the Son with the Holy Spirit makes the Son to be, in some respect, a mediator. For the Son is begotten of the Father, but with the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. Thus, the Holy Spirit relies upon the Father and the Son relies upon the Father, but the Father relies upon neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. For the Father is the source of the Trinity, but the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son in the relationship of the Trinity, and thus the Son is between the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Son, in this sense, is said to be both produced (or begotten of the Father), and to produce (for the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son), while the Father is alone unoriginate, and the Holy Spirit does not produce within respect to the relationship of the Holy Trinity. Thus, the Son shares in a relational quality of the Father in regards to the production of the Holy Spirit, but shares in a relational quality with the Holy Spirit in regards to having an origin in the Father. Thus, St. Bonaventure considers the Son the most perfect choice of the divine persons for the Incarnation, because the Son already possesses a relational quality of mediation, which neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit posses, so that it is within the role of the Son to be a mediator, and hence, mediation properly falls to the Son of God.
    The one who bridges the gap between the two, that is, between God and man, must seek to restore man to his original purity. Since man is originally meant to be a mediator, he is seen to be a son of God, even as the Son of God is the mediator within the Trinity. As it is the role of the Incarnate Mediator to bring man back to his original purity, which includes bringing man back to his original intellectual ability, it is once again proper to see the Son of God, who is the Logos, to be the one who is this mediator. For indeed, as Logos, the Son of God is the content of all knowledge, Wisdom, and as Wisdom, He is able to provide Wisdom to that which He assumes. No one is more fitting to lead man back to the divine knowledge than the Word (by whom the Father expresses Himself), which is unitable to flesh, for as the Word is the expression and revelation of the Father, so by being made flesh, does the Word continue to be the expression of the Father in this way: for He becomes an expression which is not only able to be apprehended by the intellect, but also seen by the senses. And as the Word is the image of the Father, it is through this image that creation is able to be called back to its original unitive purity, to lead back creation to its original divine conformity.
   Thus as the Son is within the framework of the Trinity the mediator between the Father and the Holy Spirit and as the Son is the image and expression of the Father, that is the expression which seeks to be apprehended, it is only proper that the One who most represents creation by being the Logos of creation itself, is the one who is Incarnate and joined with creation to bring creation back to sonship, divine conformity, and unity with God.

    7. Because the Son of man and of God is in every way the same by reason of the Incarnation and because 'whatever things for one and the same reason are the same, are the same among themselves,' (Aristotle, I Elenchi chap 5) it follows that, unless there is a word available for the purpose, one necessarily has to communicate by using an idiom, unless there is a word which includes a certain repugnance to one's idea, as is the case with those words used to express the union of one nature with another. Such words are: to unite, to be incarnate, to assume and be assumed. Such is the case with a denial of something whose opposite belongs to the other [nature], as is the case with words: to begin to be, to be created, and the like in which an allied meaning exists contrary to the foregoing rule for the foregoing reason.
    In discussing the Incarnation, one discusses the work of the Incarnation idiomatically, that is, with a word which represents the thought which is trying to be expressed. It must be understood that it is only a relative representation. As it is impossible to use a word to express the Godhead, it is also impossible to use a word to describe the person who is Incarnate. However, St. Bonaventure expresses two rules which we are to use when discussing the Incarnate one: there are some words which are more proper to use in discussing the Incarnation, for example, words which reflect unity, incarnation, and assumption. However, just as there are words which are proper, there are others which in general are not as well to be used, because they give a bad idea to the divine nature found within the Incarnate person, which include: to begin to be, to be create, and similar words. Thus, since the person is God, the person is not said to be created or to have begun to be. Even though it is not proper to refer to the Incarnate one as being created, one can speak of the person in relation to that which he assumed, so that, in and only in that sense, it is permissible to discuss a beginning in the Incarnate one, for in relation to the human nature, the Incarnate one entered time.

Return to the Bonaventure Index