Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 85

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for which cause G.o.d also exalted Him."

_I answer that,_ Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the Apostle says (Rom. 4:4): "Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned according to debt." But when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes to himself something beyond his due, it is only just that he be deprived of something else which is his due; thus, "when a man steals a sheep he shall pay back four" (Ex. 22:1). And he is said to deserve it, inasmuch as his unjust will is chastised thereby. So likewise when any man through his just will has stripped himself of what he ought to have, he deserves that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will. And hence it is written (Luke 14:11): "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

Now in His Pa.s.sion Christ humbled Himself beneath His dignity in four respects. In the first place as to His Pa.s.sion and death, to which He was not bound; secondly, as to the place, since His body was laid in a sepulchre and His soul in h.e.l.l; thirdly, as to the shame and mockeries He endured; fourthly, as to His being delivered up to man's power, as He Himself said to Pilate (John 19:11): "Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above."

And, consequently, He merited a four-fold exaltation from His Pa.s.sion. First of all, as to His glorious Resurrection: hence it is written (Ps. 138:1): "Thou hast known my sitting down"--that is, the lowliness of My Pa.s.sion--"and My rising up." Secondly, as to His ascension into heaven: hence it is written (Eph. 4:9): "Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens." Thirdly, as to the sitting on the right hand of the Father and the showing forth of His G.o.dhead, according to Isa. 52:13: "He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding high: as many have been astonished at him, so shall His visage be inglorious among men." Moreover (Phil. 2:8) it is written: "He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross: for which cause also G.o.d hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name which is above all names"--that is to say, so that He shall be hailed as G.o.d by all; and all shall pay Him homage as G.o.d. And this is expressed in what follows: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." Fourthly, as to His judiciary power: for it is written (Job 36:17): "Thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked cause and judgment Thou shalt recover."

Reply Obj. 1: The source of meriting comes of the soul, while the body is the instrument of the meritorious work. And consequently the perfection of Christ's soul, which was the source of meriting, ought not to be acquired in Him by merit, like the perfection of the body, which was the subject of suffering, and was thereby the instrument of His merit.

Reply Obj. 2: Christ by His previous merits did merit exaltation on behalf of His soul, whose will was animated with charity and the other virtues; but in the Pa.s.sion He merited His exaltation by way of recompense even on behalf of His body: since it is only just that the body, which from charity was subjected to the Pa.s.sion, should receive recompense in glory.

Reply Obj. 3: It was owing to a special dispensation in Christ that before the Pa.s.sion the glory of His soul did not s.h.i.+ne out in His body, in order that He might procure His bodily glory with greater honor, when He had merited it by His Pa.s.sion. But it was not beseeming for the glory of His soul to be postponed, since the soul was united immediately with the Word; hence it was beseeming that its glory should be filled by the Word Himself. But the body was united with the Word through the soul.

_______________________

QUESTION 50

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST

We have now to consider the death of Christ; concerning which there are six subjects of inquiry:

(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?

(2) Whether His death severed the union of G.o.dhead and flesh?

(3) Whether His G.o.dhead was separated from His soul?

(4) Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?

(5) Whether His was the same body, living and dead?

(6) Whether His death conduced in any way to our salvation?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 1]

Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Die?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should die. For a first principle in any order is not affected by anything contrary to such order: thus fire, which is the principle of heat, can never become cold. But the Son of G.o.d is the fountain-head and principle of all life, according to Ps. 35:10: "With Thee is the fountain of life." Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to die.

Obj. 2: Further, death is a greater defect than sickness, because it is through sickness that one comes to die. But it was not beseeming for Christ to languish from sickness, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. de Incarn. Verbi] says. Consequently, neither was it becoming for Christ to die.

Obj. 3: Further, our Lord said (John 10:10): "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." But one opposite does not lead to another. Therefore it seems that neither was it fitting for Christ to die.

_On the contrary,_ It is written, (John 11:50): "It is expedient that one man should die for the people ... that the whole nation perish not": which words were spoken prophetically by Caiphas, as the Evangelist testifies.

_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to satisfy for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin, according to Gen. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] eat of it ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] die the death." Now it is a fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty deserved by that other. And so Christ resolved to die, that by dying He might atone for us, according to 1 Pet. 3:18: "Christ also died once for our sins." Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh a.s.sumed. For, as Eusebius says (Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), "if, after dwelling among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though shunning death, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom." Thirdly, that by dying He might deliver us from fearing death: hence it is written (Heb. 2:14, 15) that He communicated "to flesh and blood, that through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death and might deliver them who, through the fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to servitude." Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the likeness of sin--that is, to its penalty--He might set us the example of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written (Rom. 6:10): "For in that He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto G.o.d: so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto G.o.d." Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and manifesting His power whereby He overthrew death, He might instill into us the hope of rising from the dead. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:12): "If Christ be preached that He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection from the dead?"

Reply Obj. 1: Christ is the fountain of life, as G.o.d, and not as man: but He died as man, and not as G.o.d. Hence Augustine [*Vigilius Tapsensis] says against Felician: "Far be it from us to suppose that Christ so felt death that He lost His life inasmuch as He is life in Himself; for, were it so, the fountain of life would have run dry.

Accordingly, He experienced death by sharing in our human feeling, which of His own accord He had taken upon Himself, but He did not lose the power of His Nature, through which He gives life to all things."

Reply Obj. 2: Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He endured death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself, that His death might be shown to be a voluntary one.

Reply Obj. 3: One opposite does not of itself lead to the other, yet it does so indirectly at times: thus cold sometimes is the indirect cause of heat: and in this way Christ by His death brought us back to life, when by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears another's punishment takes such punishment away.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 2]

Whether the G.o.dhead Was Separated from the Flesh When Christ Died?

Objection 1: It would seem that the G.o.dhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died. For as Matthew relates (27:46), when our Lord was hanging upon the cross He cried out: "My G.o.d, My G.o.d, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" which words Ambrose, commenting on Luke 23:46, explains as follows: "The man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the G.o.dhead; for since the G.o.dhead is immune from death, a.s.suredly death could not be there, except life departed, for the G.o.dhead is life." And so it seems that when Christ died, the G.o.dhead was separated from His flesh.

Obj. 2: Further, extremes are severed when the mean is removed. But the soul was the mean through which the G.o.dhead was united with the flesh, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 1). Therefore since the soul was severed from the flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His G.o.dhead was also separated from it.

Obj. 3: Further, G.o.d's life-giving power is greater than that of the soul. But the body could not die unless the soul quitted it.

Therefore, much less could it die unless the G.o.dhead departed.

_On the contrary,_ As stated above (Q. 16, AA. 4, 5), the attributes of human nature are predicated of the Son of G.o.d only by reason of the union. But what belongs to the body of Christ after death is predicated of the Son of G.o.d--namely, being buried: as is evident from the Creed, in which it is said that the Son of G.o.d "was conceived and born of a Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried."

Therefore Christ's G.o.dhead was not separated from the flesh when He died.

_I answer that,_ What is bestowed through G.o.d's grace is never withdrawn except through fault. Hence it is written (Rom. 11:29): "The gifts and the calling of G.o.d are without repentance." But the grace of union whereby the G.o.dhead was united to the flesh in Christ's Person, is greater than the grace of adoption whereby others are sanctified: also it is more enduring of itself, because this grace is ordained for personal union, whereas the grace of adoption is referred to a certain affective union. And yet we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without fault. Since, then there was no sin in Christ, it was impossible for the union of the G.o.dhead with the flesh to be dissolved. Consequently, as before death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of G.o.d, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of G.o.d was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).

Reply Obj. 1: Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of the personal union, but to this, that G.o.d the Father gave Him up to the Pa.s.sion: hence there "to forsake" means simply not to protect from persecutors. Or else He says there that He is forsaken, with reference to the prayer He had made: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pa.s.s away from Me," as Augustine explains it (De Gratia Novi Test.).

Reply Obj. 2: The Word of G.o.d is said to be united with the flesh through the medium of the soul, inasmuch as it is through the soul that the flesh belongs to human nature, which the Son of G.o.d intended to a.s.sume; but not as though the soul were the medium linking them together. But it is due to the soul that the flesh is human even after the soul has been separated from it--namely, inasmuch as by G.o.d's ordinance there remains in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection. And therefore the union of the G.o.dhead with the flesh is not taken away.

Reply Obj. 3: The soul formally possesses the life-giving energy, and therefore, while it is present, and united formally, the body must necessarily be a living one, whereas the G.o.dhead has not the life-giving energy formally, but effectively; because It cannot be the form of the body: and therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to be living while the union of the G.o.dhead with the flesh remains, since G.o.d does not act of necessity, but of His own will.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 3]

Whether in Christ's Death There Was a Severance Between His G.o.dhead and His Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was a severance in death between Christ's G.o.dhead and His soul, because our Lord said (John 10:18): "No man taketh away My soul from Me: but I lay it down of Myself, and I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again." But it does not appear that the body can set the soul aside, by separating the soul from itself, because the soul is not subject to the power of the body, but rather conversely: and so it appears that it belongs to Christ, as the Word of G.o.d, to lay down His soul: but this is to separate it from Himself. Consequently, by death His soul was severed from the G.o.dhead.

Obj. 2: Further, Athanasius [*Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trin. vi; Bardenhewer a.s.signs it to St. Athanasius: 45, iii. The full t.i.tle is De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto] says that he "is accursed who does not confess that the entire man, whom the Son of G.o.d took to Himself, after being a.s.sumed once more or delivered by Him, rose again from the dead on the third day." But the entire man could not be a.s.sumed again, unless the entire man was at one time separated from the Word of G.o.d: and the entire man is made of soul and body. Therefore there was a separation made at one time of the G.o.dhead from both the body and the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, the Son of G.o.d is truly styled a man because of the union with the entire man. If then, when the union of the soul with the body was dissolved by death, the Word of G.o.d continued united with the soul, it would follow that the Son of G.o.d could be truly called a soul. But this is false, because since the soul is the form of the body, it would result in the Word of G.o.d being the form of the body; which is impossible. Therefore, in death the soul of Christ was separated from the Word of G.o.d.

Obj. 4: Further, the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis, but two. Therefore, if the Word of G.o.d remained united with Christ's soul and body, then, when they were severed by Christ's death, it seems to follow that the Word of G.o.d was two hypostases during such time as Christ was dead; which cannot be admitted. Therefore after Christ's death His soul did not continue to be united with the Word.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, nevertheless His G.o.dhead remained unseparated from both--from the soul, I mean, and from the body."

_I answer that,_ The soul is united with the Word of G.o.d more immediately and more primarily than the body is, because it is through the soul that the body is united with the Word of G.o.d, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 1). Since, then, the Word of G.o.d was not separated from the body at Christ's death, much less was He separated from the soul. Accordingly, since what regards the body severed from the soul is affirmed of the Son of G.o.d--namely, that "it was buried"--so is it said of Him in the Creed that "He descended into h.e.l.l," because His soul when separated from the body did go down into h.e.l.l.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine (Tract. xlvii in Joan.), in commenting on the text of John, asks, since Christ is Word and soul and body, "whether He putteth down His soul, for that He is the Word? Or, for that He is a soul?" Or, again, "for that He is flesh?" And he says that, "should we say that the Word of G.o.d laid down His soul" ... it would follow that "there was a time when that soul was severed from the Word"--which is untrue. "For death severed the body and soul ...

but that the soul was severed from the Word I do not affirm ... But should we say that the soul laid itself down," it follows "that it is severed from itself: which is most absurd." It remains, therefore, that "the flesh itself layeth down its soul and taketh it again, not by its own power, but by the power of the Word dwelling in the flesh": because, as stated above (A. 2), the G.o.dhead of the Word was not severed from the flesh in death.

Reply Obj. 2: In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the whole man was rea.s.sumed--that is, as to all his parts--as if the Word of G.o.d had laid aside the parts of human nature by His death; but that the totality of the a.s.sumed nature was restored once more in the resurrection by the resumed union of soul and body.