PASSION OF CHRIST WITH SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS
THE PASSION OF CHRIST STUDIED WITH SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS
Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race?
Objection 1:
It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance
of the human race. For the human race could not be delivered except by God,
according to Is. 45:21: "Am not I the Lord, and there is no God else
besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me." But no
necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence.
Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.
|
Objection 2:
Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ
suffered of His own will; for it is written (Is.
53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will."
Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.
|
Objection 3:
Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): "All the ways of the Lord are
mercy and truth." But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer
on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it
appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of
Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation.
Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for
man's deliverance.
|
Objection 4:
Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from
Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic
nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for
Him to suffer for the salvation of the human race.
|
On the contrary,
It is written (Jn. 3:14): "As Moses lifted up the serpent
in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth
in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
|
I answer that,
As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the
word "necessary." In one way it means anything which of its nature
cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary
either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In
another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from
itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it
brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot
get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the
external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be
necessary from presupposing such end---namely, when some particular end
cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It
was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion,
either on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own
part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the
end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our
part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14):
"The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may
not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part,
who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion:
and to this must be referred Lk. 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on
God's part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in
the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to
be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of man
indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Lk.
24:44,46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I
was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written
in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me:
for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise
again from the dead."
|
Reply to
Objection 1: This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on
God's part.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on
the part of the man Christ.
|
Reply to
Objection 3: That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in
keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His
Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man
was set free by Christ's justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself
could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Question [1], Article [2]), God gave him His Son to satisfy
for him, according to Rm. 3:24,25: "Being justified freely by His grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be
a propitiation, through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious
mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Eph.
2:4): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity
wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us
together in Christ."
|
Reply to
Objection 4: The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of
the first man (FP, Question [64], Article [2]).
|
Whether there was any other possible way of human deliverance besides the Passion of Christ?
Objection 1:
It would seem that there was no other possible way of human deliverance
besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says (Jn.
12:24): "Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat
falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone; but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit." Upon this St. Augustine (Tract. li) observes
that "Christ called Himself the seed." Consequently, unless He
suffered death, He would not otherwise have produced the fruit of our
redemption.
|
Objection 2:
Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Mt.
26:42): "My Father, if this chalice may not pass away but I
must drink it, Thy will be done." But He spoke there of the chalice of
the Passion. Therefore Christ's Passion could not pass away; hence Hilary
says (Comm. 31 in Matth.): "Therefore the chalice cannot pass except He
drink of it, because we cannot be restored except through His Passion."
|
Objection 3:
Further, God's justice required that Christ should satisfy by the Passion in
order that man might be delivered from sin. But Christ cannot let His justice
pass; for it is written (2
Tim. 2:13): "If we believe not, He continueth faithful, He
cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself were He to deny His
justice, since He is justice itself. It seems impossible, then, for man to be
delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion.
|
Objection 4:
Further, there can be no falsehood underlying faith. But the Fathers of old
believed that Christ would suffer. Consequently, it seems that it had to be
that Christ should suffer.
|
On the contrary,
Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "We assert that the way whereby God
deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is mediator between God
and man, is both good and befitting the Divine dignity; but let us also show
that other possible means were not lacking on God's part, to whose power all
things are equally subordinate."
|
I answer that,
A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways: first of all,
simply and absolutely; or secondly, from supposition. Therefore, speaking
simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise
than by the Passion of Christ, because "no word shall be impossible with
God" (Lk. 1:37). Yet it was impossible if some
supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God's foreknowledge to be
deceived and His will or ordinance to be frustrated, then, supposing God's
foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ's Passion, it was not possible
at the same time for Christ not to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered
otherwise than by Christ's Passion. And the same holds good of all things
foreknown and preordained by God, as was laid down in the FP, Question [14],
Article [13].
|
Reply to
Objection 1: Our Lord is speaking there presupposing God's
foreknowledge and predetermination, according to which it was resolved that
the fruit of man's salvation should not follow unless Christ suffered.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: In the same way we must understand what is here objected
to in the second instance: "If this chalice may not pass away but I must
drink of it"---that is to say, because Thou hast so ordained it---hence
He adds: "Thy will be done."
|
Reply to
Objection 3: Even this justice depends on the Divine will, requiring
satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed to free man
from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against justice.
For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon fault without penalty,
if he must visit fault committed against another---for instance, against
another man, or against the State, or any Prince in higher authority. But God
has no one higher than Himself, for He is the sovereign and common good of
the whole universe. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the formality
of fault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as
anyone else, overlooking a personal trespass, without satisfaction, acts
mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought mercy:
"To Thee only have I sinned" (Ps.
50:6), as if to say: "Thou canst pardon me without injustice."
|
Reply to
Objection 4: Human faith, and even the Divine Scriptures upon which
faith is based, are both based on the Divine foreknowledge and ordinance. And
the same reason holds good of that necessity which comes of supposition, and
of the necessity which arises of the Divine foreknowledge and will.
|
Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by Christ's Passion?
Objection 1:
It would seem that there was some other more suitable way of delivering the
human race besides Christ's Passion. For nature in its operation imitates the
Divine work, since it is moved and regulated by God. But nature never employs
two agents where one will suffice. Therefore, since God could have liberated
mankind solely by His Divine will, it does not seem fitting that Christ's
Passion should have been added for the deliverance of the human race.
|
Objection 2:
Further, natural actions are more suitably performed than deeds of violence,
because violence is "a severance or lapse from what is according to
nature," as is said in De Coelo ii. But Christ's Passion brought about
His death by violence. Therefore it would have been more appropriate had
Christ died a natural death rather than suffer for man's deliverance.
|
Objection 3:
Further, it seems most fitting that whatsoever keeps something unjustly and
by violence, should be deprived of it by some superior power; hence Isaias
says (52:3): "You were sold gratis, and you shall be redeemed without
money." But the devil possessed no right over man, whom he had deceived
by guile, and whom he held subject in servitude by a sort of violence.
Therefore it seems most suitable that Christ should have despoiled the devil
solely by His power and without the Passion.
|
On the contrary,
St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "There was no other more suitable way
of healing our misery" than by the Passion of Christ.
|
I answer that,
Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various
concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this
that man was delivered by Christ's Passion, many other things besides
deliverance from sin concurred for man's salvation. In the first place, man
knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in
return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle
says (Rm. 5:8): "God commendeth His charity
towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us."
Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility,
constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are
requisite for man's salvation. Hence it is written (1 Pt. 2:21): "Christ
also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His
steps." Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man
from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss,
as shall be shown later (Question [48], Article [1]; Question [49], Articles [1], 5). Fourthly, because by this man
is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Cor. 6:20:
"You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body."
Fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater dignity, that as man was
overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should
overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should
vanquish death. Hence it is written (1
Cor. 15:57): "Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ." It was accordingly more fitting that we
should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: Even nature uses several means to one intent, in order
to do something more fittingly: as two eyes for seeing; and the same can be
observed in other matters.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: As Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. De Incarn. Verb.]
says: "Christ had come in order to destroy death, not His own, (for
since He is life itself, death could not be His), but men's death. Hence it
was not by reason of His being bound to die that He laid His body aside, but
because the death He endured was inflicted on Him by men. But even if His
body had sickened and dissolved in the sight of all men, it was not befitting
Him who healed the infirmities of others to have his own body afflicted with
the same. And even had He laid His body aside without any sickness, and had
then appeared, men would not have believed Him when He spoke of His
resurrection. For how could Christ's victory over death appear, unless He
endured it in the sight of all men, and so proved that death was vanquished
by the incorruption of His body?"
|
Reply to
Objection 3: Although the devil assailed man unjustly, nevertheless,
on account of sin, man was justly left by God under the devil's bondage. And
therefore it was fitting that through justice man should be delivered from
the devil's bondage by Christ making satisfaction on his behalf in the
Passion. This was also a fitting means of overthrowing the pride of the
devil, "who is a deserter from justice, and covetous of sway"; in
that Christ "should vanquish him and deliver man, not merely by the
power of His Godhead, but likewise by the justice and lowliness of the
Passion," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii).
|
Whether Christ ought to have suffered on the cross?
Objection 1:
It would seem that Christ ought not to have suffered on the cross. For the
truth ought to conform to the figure. But in all the sacrifices of the Old
Testament which prefigured Christ the beasts were slain with a sword and
afterwards consumed by fire. Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have
suffered on a cross, but rather by the sword or by fire.
|
Objection 2:
Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ ought not to assume
"dishonoring afflictions." But death on a cross was most
dishonoring and ignominious; hence it is written (Wis. 2:20): "Let us
condemn Him to a most shameful death." Therefore it seems that Christ
ought not to have undergone the death of the cross.
|
Objection 3:
Further, it was said of Christ (Mt.
21:9): "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord." But death upon the cross was a death of malediction, as we read
Dt. 21:23: "He is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree."
Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to be crucified.
|
On the contrary,
It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross."
|
I answer that,
It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the death of the cross.
|
First of all, as an
example of virtue. For Augustine thus writes (Questions. lxxxiii, qu. 25):
"God's Wisdom became man to give us an example in righteousness of
living. But it is part of righteous living not to stand in fear of things which
ought not to be feared. Now there are some men who, although they do not fear
death in itself, are yet troubled over the manner of their death. In order,
then, that no kind of death should trouble an upright man, the cross of this
Man had to be set before him, because, among all kinds of death, none was
more execrable, more fear-inspiring, than this."
|
Secondly, because
this kind of death was especially suitable in order to atone for the sin of
our first parent, which was the plucking of the apple from the forbidden tree
against God's command. And so, to atone for that sin, it was fitting that
Christ should suffer by being fastened to a tree, as if restoring what Adam
had purloined; according to Ps. 68:5: "Then did I pay that which I took
not away." Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion [*Cf. Serm.
ci De Tempore]: "Adam despised the command, plucking the apple from the
tree: but all that Adam lost, Christ found upon the cross."
|
The third reason is
because, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (De Cruce et Latrone
i, ii): "He suffered upon a high rood and not under a roof, in order
that the nature of the air might be purified: and the earth felt a like
benefit, for it was cleansed by the flowing of the blood from His side."
And on Jn. 3:14: "The Son of man must be lifted up," Theophylact says:
"When you hear that He was lifted up, understand His hanging on high,
that He might sanctify the air who had sanctified the earth by walking upon
it."
|
The fourth reason is,
because, by dying on it, He prepares for us an ascent into heaven, as
Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2] says. Hence it is that He says (Jn.
12:32): "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all
things to Myself."
|
The fifth reason is
because it is befitting the universal salvation of the entire world. Hence
Gregory of Nyssa observes (In Christ. Resurr., Orat. i) that "the shape
of the cross extending out into four extremes from their central point of
contact denotes the power and the providence diffused everywhere of Him who
hung upon it." Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A. III, ad 2] also says
that upon the cross "He dies with outstretched hands in order to draw with
one hand the people of old, and with the other those who spring from the
Gentiles."
|
The sixth reason is
because of the various virtues denoted by this class of death. Hence
Augustine in his book on the grace of the Old and New Testament (Ep. cxl)
says: "Not without purpose did He choose this class of death, that He
might be a teacher of that breadth, and height, and length, and depth,"
of which the Apostle speaks (Eph.
3:18): "For breadth is in the beam, which is fixed
transversely above; this appertains to good works, since the hands are
stretched out upon it. Length is the tree's extent from the beam to the
ground; and there it is planted---that is, it stands and abides---which is
the note of longanimity. Height is in that portion of the tree which remains
over from the transverse beam upwards to the top, and this is at the head of
the Crucified, because He is the supreme desire of souls of good hope. But
that part of the tree which is hidden from view to hold it fixed, and from
which the entire rood springs, denotes the depth of gratuitous grace."
And, as Augustine says (Tract. cxix in Joan.): "The tree upon which were
fixed the members of Him dying was even the chair of the Master
teaching."
|
The seventh reason is
because this kind of death responds to very many figures. For, as Augustine
says in a sermon on the Passion (Serm. ci De Tempore), an ark of wood
preserved the human race from the waters of the Deluge; at the exodus of
God's people from Egypt, Moses with a rod divided the sea, overthrew Pharaoh
and saved the people of God. the same Moses dipped his rod into the water,
changing it from bitter to sweet; at the touch of a wooden rod a salutary
spring gushed forth from a spiritual rock; likewise, in order to overcome
Amalec, Moses stretched forth his arms with rod in hand; lastly, God's law is
entrusted to the wooden Ark of the Covenant; all of which are like steps by
which we mount to the wood of the cross.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: The altar of holocausts, upon which the sacrifices of
animals were immolated, was constructed of timbers, as is set forth Ex. 27:,
and in this respect the truth answers to the figure; but "it is not
necessary for it to be likened in every respect, otherwise it would not be a
likeness," but the reality, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii). But.
in particular, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2] says: "His
head is not cut off, as was done to John; nor was He sawn in twain, like
Isaias, in order that His entire and indivisible body might obey death, and
that there might be no excuse for them who want to divide the Church."
While, instead of material fire, there was the spiritual fire of charity in
Christ's holocaust.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: Christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings which
are allied with defects of knowledge, or of grace, or even of virtue, but not
those injuries inflicted from without---nay, more, as is written Heb. 12:2:
"He endured the cross, despising the shame."
|
Reply to
Objection 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is accursed,
and, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of sin. "But
Christ's flesh was mortal, 'having the resemblance of the flesh of sin'";
and hence Moses calls it "accursed," just as the Apostle calls it
"sin," saying (2
Cor. 5:21): "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made
sin"---namely, because of the penalty of sin. "Nor is there greater
ignominy on that account, because he said: 'He is accursed of God.'"
For, "unless God had hated sin, He would never have sent His Son to take
upon Himself our death, and to destroy it. Acknowledge, then, that it was for
us He took the curse upon Himself, whom you confess to have died for
us." Hence it is written (Gal.
3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us."
|
Whether Christ endured all suffering?
Objection 1:
It would seem that Christ did endure all sufferings, because Hilary (De Trin.
x) says: "God's only-begotten Son testifies that He endured every kind
of human sufferings in order to accomplish the sacrament of His death, when
with bowed head He gave up the ghost." It seems, therefore, that He did
endure all human sufferings.
|
Objection 2:
Further, it is written (Is. 52:13): "Behold My servant shall
understand, He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding high; as
many as have been astonished at Him [Vulg.: 'thee'], so shall His visage be
inglorious among men, and His form among the sons of men." But Christ
was exalted in that He had all grace and all knowledge, at which many were
astonished in admiration thereof. Therefore it seems that He was
"inglorious," by enduring every human suffering.
|
Objection 3:
Further, Christ's Passion was ordained for man's deliverance from sin, as
stated above (Article [3]). But Christ came to deliver men
from every kind of sin. Therefore He ought to have endured every kind of
suffering.
|
On the contrary,
It is written (Jn. 19:32): "The soldiers therefore came:
and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with
Him; but after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead,
they did not break His legs." Consequently, He did not endure every
human suffering.
|
I answer that,
Human sufferings may be considered under two aspects. First of all,
specifically, and in this way it was not necessary for Christ to endure them
all, since many are mutually exclusive, as burning and drowning; for we are
dealing now with sufferings inflicted from without, since it was not
beseeming for Him to endure those arising from within, such as bodily
ailments, as already stated (Question [14], Article [4]). But, speaking generically, He did
endure every human suffering. This admits of a threefold acceptance. First of
all, on the part of men: for He endured something from Gentiles and from
Jews; from men and from women, as is clear from the women servants who
accused Peter. He suffered from the rulers, from their servants and from the
mob, according to Ps. 2:1,2: "Why have the Gentiles raged, and the
people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes
met together, against the Lord and against His Christ." He suffered from
friends and acquaintances, as is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter
denying Him.
|
Secondly, the same is
evident on the part of the sufferings which a man can endure. For Christ
suffered from friends abandoning Him; in His reputation, from the blasphemies
hurled at Him; in His honor and glory, from the mockeries and the insults
heaped upon Him; in things, for He was despoiled of His garments; in His
soul, from sadness, weariness, and fear; in His body, from wounds and
scourgings.
|
Thirdly, it may be
considered with regard to His bodily members. In His head He suffered from
the crown of piercing thorns; in His hands and feet, from the fastening of
the nails; on His face from the blows and spittle; and from the lashes over
His entire body. Moreover, He suffered in all His bodily senses: in touch, by
being scourged and nailed; in taste, by being given vinegar and gall to
drink; in smell, by being fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the
stench of corpses, "which is called Calvary"; in hearing, by being
tormented with the cries of blasphemers and scorners; in sight, by beholding
the tears of His Mother and of the disciple whom He loved.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: Hilary's words are to be understood as to all classes of
sufferings, but not as to their kinds.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: The likeness is sustained, not as to the number of the
sufferings and graces, but as to their greatness; for, as He was uplifted
above others in gifts of graces, so was He lowered beneath others by the
ignominy of His sufferings.
|
Reply to
Objection 3: The very least one of Christ's sufferings was sufficient
of itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as to fittingness, it
sufficed that He should endure all classes of sufferings, as stated above.
|
Whether the pain of Christ's Passion was greater than all other pains?
Objection 1:
It would seem that the pain of Christ's Passion was not greater than all
other pains. For the sufferer's pain is increased by the sharpness and the
duration of the suffering. But some of the martyrs endured sharper and more
prolonged pains than Christ, as is seen in St. Lawrence, who was roasted upon
a gridiron; and in St. Vincent, whose flesh was torn with iron pincers.
Therefore it seems that the pain of the suffering Christ was not the
greatest.
|
Objection 2:
Further, strength of soul mitigates pain, so much so that the Stoics held
there was no sadness in the soul of a wise man; and Aristotle (Ethic. ii)
holds that moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions. But Christ had most
perfect strength of soul. Therefore it seems that the greatest pain did not
exist in Christ.
|
Objection 3:
Further, the more sensitive the sufferer is, the more acute will the pain be.
But the soul is more sensitive than the body, since the body feels in virtue
of the soul; also, Adam in the state of innocence seems to have had a body
more sensitive than Christ had, who assumed a human body with its natural
defects. Consequently, it seems that the pain of a sufferer in purgatory, or
in hell, or even Adam's pain, if he suffered at all, was greater than
Christ's in the Passion.
|
Objection 4:
Further, the greater the good lost, the greater the pain. But by sinning the
sinner loses a greater good than Christ did when suffering; since the life of
grace is greater than the life of nature: also, Christ, who lost His life,
but was to rise again after three days, seems to have lost less than those
who lose their lives and abide in death. Therefore it seems that Christ's
pain was not the greatest of all.
|
Objection 5:
Further, the victim's innocence lessens the sting of his sufferings. But
Christ died innocent, according to Jer. 9:19: "I was as a meek lamb,
that is carried to be a victim." Therefore it seems that the pain of
Christ's Passion was not the greatest.
|
Objection 6:
Further, there was nothing superfluous in Christ's conduct. But the slightest
pain would have sufficed to secure man's salvation, because from His Divine
Person it would have had infinite virtue. Therefore it would have been
superfluous to choose the greatest of all pains.
|
On the contrary,
It is written (Lam. 1:12) on behalf of Christ's Person:
"O all ye that pass by the way attend, and see if there be any sorrow
like unto My sorrow."
|
I answer that,
As we have stated, when treating of the defects assumed by Christ (Question [15], Articles [5],6), there was true and sensible
pain in the suffering Christ, which is caused by something hurtful to the
body: also, there was internal pain, which is caused from the apprehension of
something hurtful, and this is termed "sadness." And in Christ each
of these was the greatest in this present life. This arose from four causes.
First of all, from the sources of His pain. For the cause of the sensitive
pain was the wounding of His body; and this wounding had its bitterness, both
from the extent of the suffering already mentioned (Article [5]) and from the kind of suffering,
since the death of the crucified is most bitter, because they are pierced in
nervous and highly sensitive parts---to wit, the hands and feet; moreover,
the weight of the suspended body intensifies the agony. and besides this
there is the duration of the suffering because they do not die at once like
those slain by the sword. The cause of the interior pain was, first of all,
all the sins of the human race, for which He made satisfaction by suffering;
hence He ascribes them, so to speak, to Himself, saying (Ps.
21:2): "The words of my sins." Secondly, especially the
fall of the Jews and of the others who sinned in His death chiefly of the
apostles, who were scandalized at His Passion. Thirdly, the loss of His
bodily life, which is naturally horrible to human nature.
|
The magnitude of His
suffering may be considered, secondly, from the susceptibility of the
sufferer as to both soul and body. For His body was endowed with a most
perfect constitution, since it was fashioned miraculously by the operation of
the Holy Ghost; just as some other things made by miracles are better than
others, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxii in Joan.) respecting the wine into
which Christ changed the water at the wedding-feast. And, consequently,
Christ's sense of touch, the sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling
pain, was most acute. His soul likewise, from its interior powers,
apprehended most vehemently all the causes of sadness.
|
Thirdly, the
magnitude of Christ's suffering can be estimated from the singleness of His
pain and sadness. In other sufferers the interior sadness is mitigated, and
even the exterior suffering, from some consideration of reason, by some
derivation or redundance from the higher powers into the lower; but it was
not so with the suffering Christ, because "He permitted each one of His
powers to exercise its proper function," as Damascene says (De Fide
Orth. iii).
|
Fourthly, the
magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be reckoned by this, that the
pain and sorrow were accepted voluntarily, to the end of men's deliverance
from sin; and consequently He embraced the amount of pain proportionate to
the magnitude of the fruit which resulted therefrom.
|
From all these causes
weighed together, it follows that Christ's pain was the very greatest.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: This argument follows from only one of the
considerations adduced---namely, from the bodily injury, which is the cause
of sensitive pain; but the torment of the suffering Christ is much more
intensified from other causes, as above stated.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: Moral virtue lessens interior sadness in one way, and
outward sensitive pain in quite another; for it lessens interior sadness directly
by fixing the mean, as being its proper matter, within limits. But, as was
laid down in the FS, Question [64], Article [2], moral virtue fixes the mean
in the passions, not according to mathematical quantity, but according to
quantity of proportion, so that the passion shall not go beyond the rule of
reason. And since the Stoics held all sadness to be unprofitable, they
accordingly believed it to be altogether discordant with reason, and
consequently to be shunned altogether by a wise man. But in very truth some
sadness is praiseworthy, as Augustine proves (De Civ. Dei xiv)---namely, when
it flows from holy love, as, for instance, when a man is saddened over his
own or others' sins. Furthermore, it is employed as a useful means of
satisfying for sins, according to the saying of the Apostle (2
Cor. 7:10): "The sorrow that is according to God worketh
penance, steadfast unto salvation." And so to atone for the sins of all
men, Christ accepted sadness, the greatest in absolute quantity, yet not
exceeding the rule of reason. But moral virtue does not lessen outward
sensitive pain, because such pain is not subject to reason, but follows the
nature of the body; yet it lessens it indirectly by redundance of the higher
powers into the lower. But this did not happen in Christ's case, as stated
above (cf. Question [14], Article [1], ad 2; Question [45], Article [2]).
|
Reply to
Objection 3: The pain of a suffering, separated soul belongs to the
state of future condemnation, which exceeds every evil of this life, just as
the glory of the saints surpasses every good of the present life.
Accordingly, when we say that Christ's pain was the greatest, we make no
comparison between His and the pain of a separated soul. But Adam's body
could not suffer, except he sinned. so that he would become mortal, and
passible. And, though actually suffering, it would have felt less pain than
Christ's body, for the reasons already stated. From all this it is clear that
even if by impassibility Adam had suffered in the state of innocence, his
pain would have been less than Christ's.
|
Reply to
Objection 4: Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily
life, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ
surpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed from a
greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of contrition is intensified,
and because He grieved at the one time for all sins, according to Is. 53:4:
"Surely He hath carried our sorrows." But such was the dignity of
Christ's life in the body, especially on account of the Godhead united with
it, that its loss, even for one hour, would be a matter of greater grief than
the loss of another man's life for howsoever long a time. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) that the man of virtue loves his life all the
more in proportion as he knows it to be better; and yet he exposes it for
virtue's sake. And in like fashion Christ laid down His most beloved life for
the good of charity, according to Jer. 12:7: "I have given My dear soul
into the hands of her enemies."
|
Reply to
Objection 5: The sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the
pain of the suffering, since, when a guilty man suffers, he grieves not
merely on account of the penalty, but also because of the crime. whereas the
innocent man grieves only for the penalty: yet this pain is more intensified
by reason of his innocence, in so far as he deems the hurt inflicted to be
the more undeserved. Hence it is that even others are more deserving of blame
if they do not compassionate him. according to Is. 57:1: "The just
perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
|
Reply to
Objection 6: Christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not
merely by His power, but also according to justice. And therefore He did not
simply weigh what great virtue His suffering would have from union with the
Godhead, but also how much, according to His human nature, His pain would
avail for so great a satisfaction.
|
Whether Christ suffered in His whole soul?
Objection 1:
It would seem that Christ did not suffer in His whole soul. For the soul
suffers indirectly when the body suffers, inasmuch as it is the "act of
the body." But the soul is not, as to its every part, the "act of
the body"; because the intellect is the act of no body, as is said De
Anima iii. Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His whole soul.
|
Objection 2:
Further, every power of the soul is passive in regard to its proper object.
But the higher part of reason has for its object the eternal types, "to
the consideration and consultation of which it directs itself," as
Augustine says (De Trin. xii). But Christ could suffer no hurt from the
eternal types, since they are nowise opposed to Him. Therefore it seems that
He did not suffer in His whole soul.
|
Objection 3:
Further, a sensitive passion is said to be complete when it comes into
contact with the reason. But there was none such in Christ, but only
"pro-passions"; as Jerome remarks on Mt. 26:37. Hence Dionysius
says in a letter to John the Evangelist that "He endured only mentally
the sufferings inflicted upon Him." Consequently it does not seem that
Christ suffered in His whole soul.
|
Objection 4:
Further, suffering causes pain: but there is no pain in the speculative
intellect, because, as the Philosopher says (Topic. i), "there is no
sadness in opposition to the pleasure which comes of consideration."
Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His whole soul.
|
On the contrary,
It is written (Ps. 87:4) on behalf of Christ: "My soul is
filled with evils": upon which the gloss adds: "Not with vices, but
with woes, whereby the soul suffers with the flesh; or with evils, viz. of a
perishing people, by compassionating them." But His soul would not have
been filled with these evils except He had suffered in His whole soul.
Therefore Christ suffered in His entire soul.
|
I answer that,
A whole is so termed with respect to its parts. But the parts of a soul are
its faculties. So, then, the whole soul is said to suffer in so far as it is
afflicted as to its essence, or as to all its faculties. But it must be borne
in mind that a faculty of the soul can suffer in two ways: first of all, by
its own passion; and this comes of its being afflicted by its proper object;
thus, sight may suffer from superabundance of the visible object. In another
way a faculty suffers by a passion in the subject on which it is based; as
sight suffers when the sense of touch in the eye is affected, upon which the
sense of sight rests, as, for instance, when the eye is pricked, or is
disaffected by heat.
|
So, then, we say that
if the soul be considered with respect to its essence, it is evident that
Christ's whole soul suffered. For the soul's whole essence is allied with the
body, so that it is entire in the whole body and in its every part.
Consequently, when the body suffered and was disposed to separate from the
soul, the entire soul suffered. But if we consider the whole soul according
to its faculties, speaking thus of the proper passions of the faculties, He
suffered indeed as to all His lower powers; because in all the soul's lower powers,
whose operations are but temporal, there was something to be found which was
a source of woe to Christ, as is evident from what was said above (Article [6]). But Christ's higher reason did
not suffer thereby on the part of its object, which is God, who was the
cause, not of grief, but rather of delight and joy, to the soul of Christ.
Nevertheless, all the powers of Christ's soul did suffer according as any
faculty is said to be affected as regards its subject, because all the
faculties of Christ's soul were rooted in its essence, to which suffering
extended when the body, whose act it is, suffered.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: Although the intellect as a faculty is not the act of
the body, still the soul's essence is the act of the body, and in it the
intellective faculty is rooted, as was shown in the FP, Question [77],
Articles [6],8.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: This argument proceeds from passion on the part of the
proper object, according to which Christ's higher reason did not suffer.
|
Reply to
Objection 3: Grief is then said to be a true passion, by which the
soul is troubled, when the passion in the sensitive part causes reason to
deflect from the rectitude of its act, so that it then follows the passion,
and has no longer free-will with regard to it. In this way passion of the
sensitive part did not extend to reason in Christ, but merely subjectively,
as was stated above.
|
Reply to
Objection 4: The speculative intellect can have no pain or sadness on
the part of its object, which is truth considered absolutely, and which is
its perfection: nevertheless, both grief and its cause can reach it in the
way mentioned above.
|
Whether Christ's entire soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the Passion?
Objection 1:
It would seem that Christ's entire soul did not enjoy blessed fruition during
the Passion. For it is not possible to be sad and glad at the one time, since
sadness and gladness are contraries. But Christ's whole soul suffered grief
during the Passion, as was stated above (Article [7]). Therefore His whole soul could
not enjoy fruition.
|
Objection 2:
Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii) that, if sadness be vehement, it
not only checks the contrary delight, but every delight; and conversely. But
the grief of Christ's Passion was the greatest, as shown above (Article [6]); and likewise the enjoyment of
fruition is also the greatest, as was laid down in the first volume of the
FS, Question [34], Article [3]. Consequently, it was not possible for
Christ's whole soul to be suffering and rejoicing at the one time.
|
Objection 3:
Further, beatific "fruition" comes of the knowledge and love of
Divine things, as Augustine says (Doctr. Christ. i). But all the soul's
powers do not extend to the knowledge and love of God. Therefore Christ's
whole soul did not enjoy fruition.
|
On the contrary,
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): Christ's Godhead "permitted His
flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it." In like fashion, since
it belonged to Christ's soul, inasmuch as it was blessed, to enjoy fruition,
His Passion did not impede fruition.
|
I answer that,
As stated above (Article [7]), the whole soul can be understood
both according to its essence and according to all its faculties. If it be
understood according to its essence, then His whole soul did enjoy fruition,
inasmuch as it is the subject of the higher part of the soul, to which it
belongs, to enjoy the Godhead: so that as passion, by reason of the essence,
is attributed to the higher part of the soul, so, on the other hand, by
reason of the superior part of the soul, fruition is attributed to the
essence. But if we take the whole soul as comprising all its faculties, thus
His entire soul did not enjoy fruition: not directly, indeed, because fruition
is not the act of any one part of the soul; nor by any overflow of glory,
because, since Christ was still upon earth, there was no overflowing of glory
from the higher part into the lower, nor from the soul into the body. But
since, on the contrary, the soul's higher part was not hindered in its proper
acts by the lower, it follows that the higher part of His soul enjoyed
fruition perfectly while Christ was suffering.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: The joy of fruition is not opposed directly to the grief
of the Passion, because they have not the same object. Now nothing prevents
contraries from being in the same subject, but not according to the same. And
so the joy of fruition can appertain to the higher part of reason by its
proper act; but grief of the Passion according to the subject. Grief of the Passion
belongs to the essence of the soul by reason of the body, whose form the soul
is; whereas the joy of fruition (belongs to the soul) by reason of the
faculty in which it is subjected.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: The Philosopher's contention is true because of the
overflow which takes place naturally of one faculty of the soul into another;
but it was not so with Christ, as was said above.
|
Reply to
Objection 3: Such argument holds good of the totality of the soul
with regard to its faculties.
|
Whether Christ suffered at a suitable time?
Objection 1:
It would seem that Christ did not suffer at a suitable time. For Christ's
Passion was prefigured by the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb: hence the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7): "Christ our Pasch is
sacrificed." But the paschal lamb was slain "on the fourteenth day
at eventide," as is stated in Ex. 12:6. Therefore it seems that Christ
ought to have suffered then; which is manifestly false: for He was then
celebrating the Pasch with His disciples, according to Mark's account
(14:12): "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed
the Pasch"; whereas it was on the following day that He suffered.
|
Objection 2:
Further, Christ's Passion is called His uplifting, according to Jn. 3:14:
"So must the Son of man be lifted up." And Christ is Himself called
the Sun of Justice, as we read Mal. 4:2. Therefore it seems that He ought to
have suffered at the sixth hour, when the sun is at its highest point, and
yet the contrary appears from Mk. 15:25: "It was the third hour, and
they crucified Him."
|
Objection 3:
Further, as the sun is at its highest point in each day at the sixth hour, so
also it reaches its highest point in every year at the summer solstice.
Therefore Christ ought to have suffered about the time of the summer solstice
rather than about the vernal equinox.
|
Objection 4:
Further, the world was enlightened by Christ's presence in it, according to
Jn. 9:5: "As long as I am in the world I am the light of the
world." Consequently it was fitting for man's salvation that Christ
should have lived longer in the world, so that He should have suffered, not
in young, but in old, age.
|
On the contrary,
It is written (Jn. 13:1): "Jesus, knowing that His hour
was come for Him to pass out of this world to the Father"; and (Jn.
2:4): "My hour is not yet come." Upon which texts
Augustine observes: "When He had done as much as He deemed sufficient,
then came His hour, not of necessity, but of will, not of condition, but of
power." Therefore Christ died at an opportune time.
|
I answer that,
As was observed above (Article [1]), Christ's Passion was subject to
His will. But His will was ruled by the Divine wisdom which "ordereth
all things" conveniently and "sweetly" (Wis. 8:1).
Consequently it must be said that Christ's Passion was enacted at an
opportune time. Hence it is written in De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lv:
"The Saviour did everything in its proper place and season."
|
Reply to
Objection 1: Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of
the moon, when the Jews sacrificed the Pasch: hence it is stated (Jn.
18:28) that the Jews "went not into Pilate's hall" on
the day of the Passion, "that they might not be defiled, but that they
might eat the Pasch." Upon this Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxii in
Joan.): "The Jews celebrated the Pasch then; but He celebrated the Pasch
on the previous day, reserving His own slaying until the Friday, when the old
Pasch was kept." And this appears to tally with the statement (Jn.
13:1-5) that "before the festival day of the Pasch . . . when
supper was done" . . . Christ washed "the feet of the
disciples."
|
But Matthew's account
(26:17) seems opposed to this; that "on the first day of the Azymes the
disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to
eat the Pasch?" From which, as Jerome says, "since the fourteenth day
of the first month is called the day of the Azymes, when the lamb was slain,
and when it was full moon," it is quite clear that Christ kept the
supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth. And this comes out more
clearly from Mk. 14:12: "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when
they sacrificed the Pasch," etc.; and from Lk. 22:7: "The day of
the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the Pasch should be
killed."
|
Consequently, then,
others say that Christ ate the Pasch with His disciples on the proper
day---that is, on the fourteenth day of the moon---"showing thereby that
up to the last day He was not opposed to the law," as Chrysostom says
(Hom. lxxxi in Matth.): but that the Jews, being busied in compassing Christ's
death against the law, put off celebrating the Pasch until the following day.
And on this account it is said of them that on the day of Christ's Passion
they were unwilling to enter Pilate's hall, "that they might not be
defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch."
|
But even this
solution does not tally with Mark, who says: "On the first day of the
unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch." Consequently Christ
and the Jews celebrated the ancient Pasch at the one time. And as Bede says
on Lk. 22:7,8: "Although Christ who is our Pasch was slain on the
following day---that is, on the fifteenth day of the moon---nevertheless, on
the night when the Lamb was sacrificed, delivering to the disciples to be
celebrated, the mysteries of His body and blood, and being held and bound by
the Jews, He hallowed the opening of His own immolation---that is, of His
Passion."
|
But the words (Jn.
13:1) "Before the festival day of the Pasch" are to be
understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon, which then fell upon
the Thursday: for the fifteenth day of the moon was the most solemn day of
the Pasch with the Jews: and so the same day which John calls "before
the festival day of the Pasch," on account of the natural distinction of
days, Matthew calls the first day of the unleavened bread, because, according
to the rite of the Jewish festivity, the solemnity began from the evening of
the preceding day. When it is said, then, that they were going to eat the
Pasch on the fifteenth day of the month, it is to be understood that the
Pasch there is not called the Paschal lamb, which was sacrificed on the
fourteenth day, but the Paschal food---that is, the unleavened bread---which
had to be eaten by the clean. Hence Chrysostom in the same passage gives
another explanation, that the Pasch can be taken as meaning the whole feast
of the Jews, which lasted seven days.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): "'It
was about the sixth hour' when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be
crucified," as John relates. For it "was not quite the sixth hour,
but about the sixth---that is, it was after the fifth, and when part of the
sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended---that the
darkness began, when Christ hung upon the cross. It is understood to have
been the third hour when the Jews clamored for the Lord to be crucified: and
it is most clearly shown that they crucified Him when they clamored out.
Therefore, lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime from the
Jews to the soldiers, he says: 'It was the third hour, and they crucified
Him,' that they before all may be found to have crucified Him, who at the
third hour clamored for His crucifixion. Although there are not wanting some
persons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the third hour, which John
recalls, saying: 'It was the Parasceve, about the sixth hour.' For
'Parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation.' But the true Pasch, which was
celebrated in the Lord's Passion, began to be prepared from the ninth hour of
the night---namely, when the chief priests said: 'He is deserving of
death.'" According to John, then, "the sixth hour of the
Parasceve" lasts from that hour of the night down to Christ's crucifixion;
while, according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day.
|
Still, there are some
who contend that this discrepancy is due to the error of a Greek transcriber:
since the characters employed by them to represent 3 and 6 are somewhat
alike.
|
Reply to
Objection 3: According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test.,
qu. lv, "our Lord willed to redeem and reform the world by His Passion,
at the time of year at which He had created it---that is, at the equinox. It
is then that day grows upon night; because by our Saviour's Passion we are
brought from darkness to light." And since the perfect enlightening will
come about at Christ's second coming, therefore the season of His second
coming is compared (Mt. 24:32,33) to the summer in these words:
"When the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you
know that summer is nigh: so you also, when you shall see all these things,
know ye that it is nigh even at the doors." And then also shall be
Christ's greatest exaltation.
|
Reply to
Objection 4: Christ willed to suffer while yet young, for three
reasons. First of all, to commend the more His love by giving up His life for
us when He was in His most perfect state of life. Secondly, because it was
not becoming for Him to show any decay of nature nor to be subject to
disease, as stated above (Question [14], Article [4]). Thirdly, that by dying and rising
at an early age Christ might exhibit beforehand in His own person the future
condition of those who rise again. Hence it is written (Eph.
4:13): "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age
of the fulness of Christ."
|
Whether Christ suffered in a suitable place?
Objection 1:
It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable place. For Christ suffered
according to His human nature, which was conceived in Nazareth and born in
Bethlehem. Consequently it seems that He ought not to have suffered in
Jerusalem, but in Nazareth or Bethlehem.
|
Objection 2:
Further, the reality ought to correspond with the figure. But Christ's
Passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, and these were
offered up in the Temple. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have
suffered in the Temple, and not outside the city gate.
|
Objection 3:
Further, the medicine should correspond with the disease. But Christ's
Passion was the medicine against Adam's sin: and Adam was not buried in
Jerusalem, but in Hebron; for it is written (Josue 14:15): "The name of
Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the greatest in the land of
[Vulg.: 'among'] the Enacims was laid there."
|
On the contrary,
It is written (Lk. 13:33): "It cannot be that a prophet
perish out of Jerusalem." Therefore it was fitting that He should die in
Jerusalem.
|
I answer that,
According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lv, "the
Saviour did everything in its proper place and season," because, as all
things are in His hands, so are all places: and consequently, since Christ
suffered at a suitable time, so did He in a suitable place.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: Christ died most appropriately in Jerusalem. First of
all, because Jerusalem was God's chosen place for the offering of sacrifices
to Himself: and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's Passion,
which is a true sacrifice, according to Eph. 5:2: "He hath delivered
Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."
Hence Bede says in a Homily (xxiii): "When the Passion drew nigh, our
Lord willed to draw nigh to the place of the Passion"---that is to say,
to Jerusalem---whither He came five days before the Pasch; just as, according
to the legal precept, the Paschal lamb was led to the place of immolation
five days before the Pasch, which is the tenth day of the moon.
|
Secondly, because the
virtue of His Passion was to be spread over the whole world, He wished to
suffer in the center of the habitable world---that is, in Jerusalem.
Accordingly it is written (Ps.
73:12): "But God is our King before ages: He hath wrought
salvation in the midst of the earth"---that is, in Jerusalem, which is
called "the navel of the earth" [*Cf. Jerome's comment on Ezech.
5:5].
|
Thirdly, because it
was specially in keeping with His humility: that, as He chose the most
shameful manner of death, so likewise it was part of His humility that He did
not refuse to suffer in so celebrated a place. Hence Pope Leo says (Serm. I
in Epiph.): "He who had taken upon Himself the form of a servant chose
Bethlehem for His nativity and Jerusalem for His Passion."
|
Fourthly, He willed
to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests dwelt, to show that the wickedness
of His slayers arose from the chiefs of the Jewish people. Hence it is
written (Acts 4:27): "There assembled together in
this city against Thy holy child Jesus whom Thou hast anointed, Herod, and
Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel."
|
Reply to
Objection 2: For three reasons Christ suffered outside the gate, and
not in the Temple nor in the city. First of all, that the truth might
correspond with the figure. For the calf and the goat which were offered in
most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of the entire multitude were
burnt outside the camp, as commanded in Lev. 16:27. Hence it is written (Heb.
13:27): "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is
brought into the holies by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the
camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His own
blood, suffered without the gate."
|
Secondly, to set us
the example of shunning worldly conversation. Accordingly the passage
continues: "Let us go forth therefore to Him without the camp, bearing
His reproach."
|
Thirdly, as
Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (Hom. i De Cruce et Latrone):
"The Lord was not willing to suffer under a roof, nor in the Jewish
Temple, lest the Jews might take away the saving sacrifice, and lest you
might think He was offered for that people only. Consequently, it was beyond
the city and outside the walls, that you may learn it was a universal
sacrifice, an oblation for the whole world, a cleansing for all."
|
Reply to
Objection 3: According to Jerome, in his commentary on Mt. 27:33,
"someone explained 'the place of Calvary' as being the place where Adam
was buried; and that it was so called because the skull of the first man was
buried there. A pleasing interpretation indeed, and one suited to catch the
ear of the people, but, still, not the true one. For the spots where the
condemned are beheaded are outside the city and beyond the gates, deriving
thence the name of Calvary---that is, of the beheaded. Jesus, accordingly,
was crucified there, that the standards of martyrdom might be uplifted over
what was formerly the place of the condemned. But Adam was buried close by
Hebron and Arbe, as we read in the book of Jesus Ben Nave." But Jesus
was to be crucified in the common spot of the condemned rather than beside
Adam's sepulchre, to make it manifest that Christ's cross was the remedy, not
only for Adam's personal sin, but also for the sin of the entire world.
|
Whether it was fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves?
Objection 1:
It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been crucified with thieves,
because it is written (2 Cor. 6:14): "What participation hath
justice with injustice?" But for our sakes Christ "of God is made
unto us justice" (1 Cor. 1:30); whereas iniquity applies to
thieves. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be crucified with
thieves.
|
Objection 2:
Further, on Mt. 26:35, "Though I should die with Thee, I will not deny
Thee," Origen (Tract. xxxv in Matth.) observes: "It was not men's
lot to die with Jesus, since He died for all." Again, on Lk. 22:33,
"I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison and death," Ambrose
says: "Our Lord's Passion has followers, but not equals." It seems,
then, much less fitting for Christ to suffer with thieves.
|
Objection 3:
Further, it is written (Mt. 27:44) that "the thieves who were
crucified with Him reproached Him." But in Lk. 22:42 it is stated that
one of them who were crucified with Christ cried out to Him: "Lord,
remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom." It seems, then, that
besides the blasphemous thieves there was another man who did not blaspheme
Him: and so the Evangelist's account does not seem to be accurate when it
says that Christ was crucified with thieves.
|
On the contrary,
It was foretold by Isaias (53:12): "And He was reputed with the
wicked."
|
I answer that,
Christ was crucified between thieves from one intention on the part of the
Jews, and from quite another on the part of God's ordaining. As to the
intention of the Jews, Chrysostom remarks (Hom. lxxxvii in Matth.) that they
crucified the two thieves, one on either side, "that He might be made to
share their guilt. But it did not happen so; because mention is never made of
them; whereas His cross is honored everywhere. Kings lay aside their crowns
to take up the cross: on their purple robes, on their diadems, on their
weapons, on the consecrated table, everywhere the cross shines forth."
|
As to God's
ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves, because, as Jerome says on Mt.
27:33: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, so for our
salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty." Secondly,
as Pope Leo observes (Serm. iv de Passione): "Two thieves were
crucified, one on His right hand and one on His left, to set forth by the
very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be made
in His hour of judgment." And Augustine on Jn. 7:36: "The very
cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment-seat: for the judge being set in
the midst, the one who believed was delivered, the other who mocked Him was
condemned. Already He has signified what He shall do to the quick and the
dead; some He will set on His right, others on His left hand." Thirdly,
according to Hilary (Comm. xxxiii in Matth.): "Two thieves are set, one
upon His right and one upon His left, to show that all mankind is called to
the sacrament of His Passion. But because of the cleavage between believers
and unbelievers, the multitude is divided into right and left, those on the
right being saved by the justification of faith." Fourthly, because, as
Bede says on Mk. 15:27: "The thieves crucified with our Lord denote
those who, believing in and confessing Christ, either endure the conflict of
martyrdom or keep the institutes of stricter observance. But those who do the
like for the sake of everlasting glory are denoted by the faith of the thief
on the right; while others who do so for the sake of human applause copy the
mind and behavior of the one on the left."
|
Reply to
Objection 1: Just as Christ was not obliged to die, but willingly
submitted to death so as to vanquish death by His power: so neither deserved
He to be classed with thieves; but willed to be reputed with the ungodly that
He might destroy ungodliness by His power. Accordingly, Chrysostom says (Hom.
lxxxiv in Joan.) that "to convert the thief upon the cross, and lead him
into paradise, was no less a wonder than to shake the rocks."
|
Reply to
Objection 2: It was not fitting that anyone else should die with
Christ from the same cause as Christ: hence Origen continues thus in the same
passage: "All had been under sin, and all required that another should
die for them, not they for others."
|
Reply to
Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): We can
understand Matthew "as putting the plural for the singular" when he
said "the thieves reproached Him." Or it may be said, with Jerome,
that "at first both blasphemed Him, but afterwards one believed in Him
on witnessing the wonders."
|
Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His Godhead?
Objection 1:
It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His Godhead; for
it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they
would never have crucified the Lord of glory." But Christ is the Lord of
glory in respect of His Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion is attributed to
Him in respect of His Godhead.
|
Objection 2:
Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead Itself, according to
Ps. 36:39: "But the salvation of the just is from the Lord."
Consequently, if Christ's Passion did not appertain to His Godhead, it would
seem that it could not produce fruit in us.
|
Objection 3:
Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for murdering God
Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the punishment. Now this would not be
so if the Passion were not attributed to the Godhead. Therefore Christ's
Passion should be so attributed.
|
On the contrary,
Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): "The Word is impassible whose Nature is
Divine." But what is impassible cannot suffer. Consequently, Christ's
Passion did not concern His Godhead.
|
I answer that,
As stated above (Question [2], Articles [1],2,3,6), the union of the human
nature with the Divine was effected in the Person, in the hypostasis, in the
suppositum, yet observing the distinction of natures; so that it is the same
Person and hypostasis of the Divine and human natures, while each nature
retains that which is proper to it. And therefore, as stated above (Question [16], Article [4]), the Passion is to be attributed
to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature,
which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature. Hence, in a Synodal
Epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes., P. i, cap. 26] we read: "If any
man does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was
crucified in the flesh, let him be anathema." Therefore Christ's Passion
belongs to the "suppositum" of the Divine Nature by reason of the
passible nature assumed, but not on account of the impassible Divine Nature.
|
Reply to
Objection 1: The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the
Lord of glory, but as a man capable of suffering.
|
Reply to
Objection 2: As is said in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus [*P.
iii, cap. 10], "Christ's death being, as it were, God's
death"---namely, by union in Person---"destroyed death"; since
He who suffered "was both God and man. For God's Nature was not wounded,
nor did It undergo any change by those sufferings."
|
Reply to
Objection 3: As the passage quoted goes on to say: "The Jews did
not crucify one who was simply a man; they inflicted their presumptions upon
God. For suppose a prince to speak by word of mouth, and that his words are
committed to writing on a parchment and sent out to the cities, and that some
rebel tears up the document, he will be led forth to endure the death
sentence, not for merely tearing up a document, but as destroying the
imperial message. Let not the Jew, then, stand in security, as crucifying a
mere man; since what he saw was as the parchment, but what was hidden under
it was the imperial Word, the Son by nature, not the mere utterance of a
tongue."
|
Comments
Post a Comment