Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"
178 T. SOMLYÓI TÓTH does not advert to the original sense, of a change or departure from genus. Philippians 2,6-7 reappears in dist. 7, q. 1, art 2. of Thomas’ commentary on the Sentences, book three, where the question is asked, whether Christ may be called homo dominicus. In Lombard’s compilation, the context is a clarification of difficulties connected with the doctrine of the union of God and man in Christ, intended to to show that the two natures remain distinct within in the union. Christ could be called homo dominicus only by such a confusion of the two natures that would suggest the production of a third, semi-divine kind of beign. The fifth introductory argument in Thomas’ commentary alludes to a confusion of this kind by suggesting that since the condition of servitude is expressed rather by the name of “servant” than by the name “lord”, and since the Apostle “applies to Christ the name of servitude in Philippians 2,7”, it seems to follow that even in the servant form, one who is the incarnate Lord should be called homo dominicus. Thomas points at that the Apostle does not say that Christ or the Son of God is a servant, but that he took on the form of a servant, or human nature. Separated from the Word this human nature would be both servile and ignorant. The adjective dominicus therefore does not apply to Christ’s human nature but rather to his lordly or divine nature. Homo dominicus is thus a misleading title, suggesting a confusion rather than a union of the two natures, and, as such, is to be rejected.2 Subsequently we find Philippians 2,7 applied in a similar discussion on the subject of adoptive sonship, and whether Christ as man is the adopted son of God. In quaestincula 3 of the section, the third argument suggests that if the status of adopted sonship is more worthy than that of servant, and Christ according to his humanity is called servant, he should with even more reason be called the adopted son of God. Thomas’ answer once again clarifies the sense in which Christ’s forma servi should be understood: it implies only his subjection to God. Hence, insofar as he is man, Christ is called a servant because he is less than the 2 LOMBARD, Sent., lin. 3, dist. 7, cap. 3; AQUINAS, In Sent. 3, dist. 7. q. 1, art. 2, p. 264, 266. “Conditio servitutis magis exprimitur nomine servi quam nomine dominici. Sed Apostolus nomen servitutis in Christo ponit Philip. 2,7 formam servi accipiens. Ergo possumus etiam dicere eum dominicum.” The problem is considered again in the Summa theologiae, Tertia pars, q.16, art. 3, although without reference to the Philippians text.
