Folia Theologica 9. (1998)

Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"

‘HABITU INVENTUS UT HOMO"

183

Although Thomas does not actually say much about the link between Philippians 2,7 and the “suffering servant” passages in Isaiah, he does bring out more clearly than did any of his predecessors this textual parallel, which may have been part of the original author’s intention. It is important to notice, he continues, that forma servi, rather than servus, is the term used for the nature assumed. Servus is the name of a person, hypostasis, or suppositum — that is, of a complete and subsisting individual — while forma servi indicates what sort of nature was assumed. Having made these points, he concludes:

For the Son of God did not assume a man, because that would give it to be understood that the man was other than the Son of God, when in fact the Son of God was made man.

Non ergo Filius Dei assumsit hominem, quia daretur intelli- gi quod home esset aliud a Filio Dei, cum tamen Filius Dei factus sit homo. Accepit ergo naturam in persona sua, ut esset idem in persona Filius Dei et Filius hominis.15

Human nature, therefore, was assumed by the person of the Son of God, so that the Son of God and son of man were one in person.

Continuing, Thomas shows from the next two phases how Christ was found in full conformity with human nature according to species, in such a way that there was no change in his divine nature nor any mixture of the two natures. Et habitu inventus ut homo is an indication of Christ’s assumption of all the properties of human nature, including the defects. Augustine’s distinctions among the four senses of habitus are brought in to demonstrate that the union was not, strictly speaking, an accidental one. Then, following both Leo the Great and Augustine, Thomas finds in Philippians 2,6-7 material for excluding heresies that denied or obscured the union of God and man in the one person of Christ. The Photinian denial of Christ’s pre-existence in the divine nature is refuted with the phrase, cum in forma Dei esset, which describes the divinity of Christ before the incarnation. The equality of the Son with the Father is indicated, against the Arians, with the word, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo. The Nestorian theology of the inhabitation of the Word in the man Jesus is show to be erroneous because the words, semetipsum exinavit, indicate that only the Son emptied himself to become man, while the Father and Holy Spirit, who are said to inhabit

15 AQUINAS, In. ep. ad Phil., cap. 2, lect. 2, vol. 2, p. 101 (58).