신학대전 제3부 46문 · 그리스도의 수난

Objection 1. It seems 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 Isaias xlv. 21: Have 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.

Obj. 2. Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isa. liii. 7): He was offered because it was His own will. Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.

Obj. 3. Further, as is written (Ps. xxiv. 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 men's deliverance.

Obj. 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 iii. 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, according to John (loc. cit.): 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 xxiv. 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 (xxii. 22): The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined; and (xxiv. 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 behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead.

Reply Obj. 1. This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God's part.

Reply Obj. 2. This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ.

Reply Obj. 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 (Q. I., A. 2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Rom. iii. 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 St. Paul says (Ephes. ii. 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 Obj. 4. The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man (I., Q. LXIV., A. 2).

Objection 1. It seems that there was no other possible way of human deliverance besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says (John xii. 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 observes that Christ called Himself the seed. Consequently, unless He suffered death, He would not otherwise have produced the fruit of our redemption.

Obj. 2. Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Matth. xxvi. 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: Therefore the chalice cannot pass except He drink of it, because we cannot be restored except through His Passion.

Obj. 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. ii. 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.

Obj. 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 (Luke i. 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, or 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 First Part (Q. XIV., A. 3).

Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 2. In the same way we must understand what is here objected 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 Obj. 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. l. 6), as if to say: Thou canst pardon me without injustice.

Reply Obj. 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.

Objection 1. It seems 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.

Obj. 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.

Obj. 3. Further, it seems most fitting that whosoever keeps something unjustly and by violence, should be deprived of it by some superior power; hence Isaias says (lii. 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 (Rom. v. 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 Pet. ii. 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 (Q. XLVIII., A. 1; Q. XLIX., AA. 1, 5). Fourthly, because man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, when he bears in mind that he has been redeemed by Christ's blood, according to 1 Cor. vi. 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. xv. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 2. As Chrysostom says (Athanasius, Orat. De Incarn. Verb.): 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 Obj. 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.).