Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 64:1 (Mar 2021)
Article: The Doctrine Of Analogy And Christ’s Human Nature
Author: Randall K. Johnson

JETS 64:1 (March 2021) p. 147

The Doctrine Of Analogy And Christ’s Human Nature

Randall Johnson*

^* Randall K. Johnson is a Ph.D. student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Rd., Louisville, KY 40280. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: In the incarnation, God the Son assumed a human nature. The term “nature,” however, is ambiguous between a particular thing and a set of essential properties. Either Christ assumed a particular body-soul composite, or he assumed the essential properties that constitute humanity, e.g., having-a-body and having-a-soul. Whether one considers the incarnation in a primarily concrete or abstract sense contributes significantly to one’s Christological model. But the motivation to affirm either concretism or abstractism may originate in theological method rather Christology. How one understands language about God may drive one either to concretism or abstractism. I argue that concretism’s success may originate in the doctrine of analogy, whereas abstractism’s failure may originate in univocal language about God. First, I provide a taxonomy of abstract and concrete models and show why concretism is superior to abstractism; abstract models tend to suffer from monothelitism, the Word-flesh paradigm, and kenoticism. Second, I demonstrate that language about God affects our understanding of the incarnation. Univocity tends in the direction of abstractism, and analogy tends in the direction of concretism.

Key words: Christology, incarnation, human nature, concretism, abstractism, doctrine of analogy, kenosis, monothelitism, dyothelitism, Creator-creature

In the incarnation, God the Son assumed a human nature. The term “nature,” however, is ambiguous between a particular thing and a set of essential properties.1 On the former reading, “my human nature is distinct from your human nature.” Call this view “concretism.” On the latter reading, “my human nature is identical with your human nature.”2 Call this view “abstractism.” For Christ to assume a concrete human nature is for him to assume a particular human body and soul. For Christ to assume an abstract human nature is for him to assume the essential properties that constitute humanity. Whether one considers the incarnation in a primarily concrete or abstract sense contributes significantly to one’s Christological model.3 But the

JETS 64:1 (March 2021) p. 148

motivation to affirm either concretism or abstractism may originate in theological...