On the Communication of Idioms and the Ontology of Participation
Quaeritur
Utrum doctrina communicationis idiomatum non solum ad Christologiam sed etiam ad ontologiam participationis fundamentum praebeat, ita ut unio personalis in Christo revelet modum quo divina vita creaturis communicari possit; et quomodo haec communicatio realis distinguatur ab interpretationibus nominalisticis quae communicationem ad sanctionem regulorum linguarum redigunt.
Whether the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum provides not only a Christological but also an ontological foundation for participation, such that the personal union in Christ reveals the mode by which divine life can be communicated to creatures; and how this real communication differs from nominalist interpretations which reduce it to the sanctioning of linguistic rules.
Thesis
The communicatio idiomatum is not merely a set of grammatical permissions governing Christological predication. It is the ontological disclosure of how divine and human natures are united personally in the Logos. Each of the classical genera expresses a mode of participation:
• the genus idiomaticum reveals the unity of personal subject;
• the genus maiestaticum discloses real communication of divine life to the human nature;
• the genus apotelesmaticum exhibits unity of action in a single personal agent;
• the genus tapeinoticum manifests the humility of the divine form in finite flesh.
Thus the communicatio is the metaphysical grammar of participation itself: a real communication, not a linguistic artifact. Nominalist construals, such as Graham White’s, collapse this communication into rule-sanctioned predication and thereby render the entire Christological mystery unintelligible. The communicatio is grounded not in language but in the Logos.
Locus Classicus
John 1:14
ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.
“The Word became flesh.”
The communicatio arises because the Word truly assumes human nature.
Colossians 2:9
ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς.
“In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
This is the maiestaticum in its purest form.
Luther, WA 26, 127
Communicatio idiomatum est ex ipsa personalitate Christi.
“The communication of attributes arises from the very personhood of Christ.”
Explicatio
1. The genus idiomaticum: unity of the personal subject
The genus idiomaticum asserts that predicates belonging properly to one nature may be predicated of the person. This is not a grammatical convenience but a metaphysical necessity. The person is the hypostatic locus of unity. Because there is one person, predicates of either nature may be applied to the same subject.
Thus “God suffers” is not a metaphor. It is a description of the suffering of the person who is God. Here participation begins: divine and human predicates converge in one personal identity.
2. The genus maiestaticum: real communication of divine life
The maiestaticum affirms that the divine majesty is communicated to the human nature. The human nature of Christ does not become divine, but it participates in divine life through the person of the Logos. This is the genus most violently incompatible with nominalism.
White claims Luther’s nova lingua is a matter of rule-sanctioning: a new permission to speak of Christ in ways not allowed by Aristotelian grammar. But the maiestaticum cannot be reduced to linguistic regulation. It asserts real ontological participation. The human nature truly receives divine power and presence. Divine majesty is not asserted but communicated.
Luther’s own texts in WA 39 II, WA 42, and WA 49 show that communication is ontological, not grammatical. Divine life enters human flesh. New meaning arises because new reality exists.
White’s reading cannot sustain this. His Luther cannot speak maiestatically because he has no ontology through which majesty can be communicated.
3. The genus apotelesmaticum: unity of action in one personal agent
The apotelesmaticum teaches that all Christ’s works—divine and human—are performed by the one person. This reveals participation in the order of action: divine and human energies converge without competition.
Miracles are not divided acts. The same person acts according to both natures.
This is the ontological template for our broader system: creaturely action participates in divine intention without competitive causality. In Christ this unity is perfect; in believers it is participatory and derivative.
4. The genus tapeinoticum (genus humiliationis): humility of the divine form
The tapeinoticum expresses the opposite motion of the maiestaticum. Whereas the latter reveals exaltation, the former reveals divine humility: the Logos bears the form of a servant, even to death. Recall Philippians 2:7: ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (“He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”)
This humiliation is real, not figurative. The divine person assumes the conditions of finite weakness. This genus grounds the entire cruciform structure of revelation: divine majesty shows itself in lowliness. Participation in God therefore requires conformity to this form.
This cannot be sustained by nominalism, for humiliation becomes then only a mode of speaking, not a mode of being borne by the Logos.
5. The communicatio as the grammar of all participation
What Christ is in himself—God and man in unity—becomes the pattern for all creaturely participation. Believers do not share the hypostatic union, but they participate in the mystery it reveals: union without confusion, distinction without separation, exaltation without autonomy, humility without negation. Christology is ontology, and the communicatio is the key.
Objectiones
Ob I. If divine attributes are communicated to human nature, does this not violate immutability?
Ob II. If predicates cross between natures, does this not collapse distinction?
Ob III. If communication is real, not grammatical, does this not imply divinization of the human?
Ob IV. If White is wrong, why does Luther use such striking linguistic language about the nova lingua?
Ob V. If divine and human acts are unified, is Christ truly free as man?
Responsiones
Ad I. Communication affects the human nature, not the divine. The divine is not altered; the human is exalted. The Logos remains immutable; communication is asymmetrical.
Ad II. Predicates cross at the level of person, not nature. Natures remain intact; predication reflects hypostatic unity.
Ad III. The human nature participates without being dissolved. Participation is deifying only in the sense of sharing divine life by grace, not by essence.
Ad IV. Luther speaks of nova lingua because divine reality forces new linguistic forms. It is semantic transfiguration, not rule-sanctioning. White mistakes effect for cause.
Ad V. Christ’s human freedom is perfected, not overridden, by divine intention. Unity of action strengthens freedom rather than diminishes it.
Nota
The communicatio idiomatum is the metaphysical center of Lutheran theology. It reveals the pattern by which divine life can be present in the finite without confusion or division. It destroys nominalist construals that reduce theology to the regulation of speech. Divine action creates new reality, and language is stretched to name it. Ontology grounds grammar, not vice versa.
In Christ, participation is full and hypostatic. In believers, participation is real and pneumatic. In both, the Logos is the ground.
Determinatio
We therefore determine:
The communicatio idiomatum is an ontological mystery grounded in the personal union of the Logos, not a linguistic convention. The genus idiomaticum reveals unity of personal predication; the genus maiestaticum reveals real communication of divine life; the genus apotelesmaticum reveals unity of action; and the genus tapeinoticum reveals the humility of divine form. Nominalist construals, such as that of Graham White, cannot sustain these genera and therefore cannot sustain Luther’s Christology. Participation in divine life is grounded in the communicatio: what is revealed in Christ is extended to believers through the Spirit.
Transitus ad Disputationem LXIII
Having established that the communicatio idiomatum is the form of divine–human unity and the grammar of participation, we now turn to its deepest manifestation: the cross. For in the crucified Logos, majesty and humility converge, revealing the form in which divine glory becomes present to the world.
We therefore proceed to Disputatio LXIII: De Maiestate Crucis et de Forma Humilitatis Divinae.
