Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential theologians of his time, addresses many highly controversial topics concerning the nature of God and God's relationship humanity in Summa Theologica. In the fifth question of Part IIIa, Aquinas discusses the hypothesis that Christ has a human nature. Although most Christians believe that Jesus became a man in the general sense, the concepts of hypothesis and human nature are often misunderstood. The simple expression “the hypothesis of human nature through Christ” therefore warrants a thorough explanation. For this reason, Aquinas systematically responds to and rejects many of the objections of his contemporaries. Through his adherence to logical thinking and precision of language, Aquinas refutes the claim that Christ did not assume a human mind, asserting instead that the assumption of a human mind was necessary for salvation occurs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Aquinas believes that definitions are an integral part of understanding theological principles, and the structure of his arguments reflects this belief. He devotes much of his writing to defining terms so that his audience has an accurate understanding of important concepts. The Christ hypothesis is no exception. Throughout his discussion, Aquinas reveals the definition of hypothesis. He says that it is impossible "to assume a body to the unity of nature" and cites Augustine's assertion that in the hypothesis Christ maintained the fullness of his divinity (ST 3a, q. 5, a. 1, ad. 2). . Aquinas believes that the hypothesis is not a mixture of two natures; on the contrary, the natures of Christ and man remain distinct. For Thomas Aquinas, assumption is the act of taking on another nature which is maintained in its entirety but nevertheless remains secondary in relation to the original nature of the Person. Concerning the human nature of Christ, Thomas Aquinas comes to the conclusion that human nature consists of two facets: the body and the soul (3a, q. 5, a. 3, co. 1). One aspect of the soul is the mind, which allows man to reason and make decisions (3a, q. 5, a. 4, ad. 3). Using these definitions, Aquinas responds to the claim that Christ did not assume a human mind and, subsequently, did not fully assume human nature. In the discussion preceding the current topic, Aquinas arrives at three major conclusions: that Jesus assumed a real body, that Christ's human body was physical, and Christ also assumed a human soul (3a, q. 5 , a. 1-3). In this section he focuses on the soul and questions whether Christ assumed a complete human soul or whether he omitted the human intellect. The major opposition to the idea that Jesus assumed a human mind is that Christ, with God's wisdom, did not need a human mind (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1 ). God is omniscient and, therefore, so is Jesus. For Aquinas' opponents, it makes sense that Christ assumed a human body, because God has no physical form. It makes no sense to them, however, that Christ assumes a finite mind with limited abilities when he already knows everything. In his response to this argument, Aquinas gives three reasons why it is not only logical but imperative that Christ assumed a human mind. The simplest reason why Aquinas believes that Christ took on a human soul in its entirety is that the Bible implies so. Throughout the Gospels, many of Jesus' actions are indicative of a human intellect. Luke states that “Jesus grew in wisdomand in stature,” but an omniscient God cannot become wiser (Holy Bible, Luke 2:52). Thomas Aquinas cites a similar example as proof that Christ must have a human intellect. Matthew states that Christ marveled at the Roman officer's faith (Matthew 8:10). Christ, in this encounter, “sees an effect and [ignores] its cause”, which leads him to marvel (ST 3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). The divine nature of Christ cannot explain this response: Christ, in his divinity, would know why the Roman officer had so much faith and what prompted him to express it at that moment. The only way Christ would have the capacity to wonder is if he had a finite mind, which suggests that he assumed one when he came to earth. Aquinas also rejects the idea of ​​a Christ without a human intellect because it is contrary to the truth. of the Incarnation (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). The word “incarnation” describes the process of entering into the flesh. The flesh does not refer only to the body, but “the whole man is signified by the flesh” (3a, q. 5, a. 3, ad. 1). In this synecdoche, flesh is used to refer to the whole of human nature, both soul and body. Based on this understanding, one cannot have true flesh without having both a body and a soul. As stated in the Gospel of John, Christ became human flesh, so by definition he assumed a human body and a human soul (John 1:14). Thomas Aquinas states that the aspect of man's soul that makes it distinctly human is its rationality, "since our soul differs from the animal soul in spirit alone" (3a, q. 5, a 4, ar.1). Because the spirit is the distinguishing factor of the human soul, it was necessary for Christ to adopt a spirit in his acceptance of human nature. Without this, Jesus would not be “in the flesh” of a human being and the Incarnation would cease to be true. The claim that Christ assumed a human spirit is not only evidenced in the Bible by reference to the Incarnation, but is one of the reasons why the Incarnation occurred. For Thomas Aquinas, the goal of the Incarnation was “the justification of man from sin” (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). Aquinas also cites Damascene, saying that “what has not been supposed is not curable” (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). Jesus took on human nature so that He could live a sinless life and die for the sins committed by humanity in the flesh. The justice of Christ in the different aspects of human nature therefore covers the sins committed with these faculties. Thomas Aquinas says that “the human soul is not capable of sinning…except through the spirit” (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). From this statement it appears that Aquinas believes that the human soul is not intrinsically sinful; the human soul sins because the spirit allows it to sin. The mind houses man's ability to reason and exercise free will, and through this free will one can choose to sin. Those who claim that Jesus did not assume a human spirit suggest that the human spirit was not vindicated in Christ's death. If this is true, it would mean that the aspect of the soul that provides free will for sin has not been made righteous by Christ. The spirit would not be covered by God's grace and would be judged according to God's standards of holiness. Because the spirit of man is imperfect, it would be condemned. Thus, humanity would still be separated from God by sin, and the goal of the Incarnation would not be achieved. Aquinas, however, rejects this claim, as it is inconsistent with his understanding of the Incarnation. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Personalized Essay This.