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 Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 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 (Psalm
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 (John 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 Luke 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 (Luke 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 Romans 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 (Ephesians 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 (I, 64, 2).
No comments:
Post a Comment