|
State of the question. The question concerns bodily defects inasmuch
as the body is passible or subject to pain, hunger, thirst, and
death.
It seems that Christ ought not to have assumed these defects,
because, just as His soul had every perfection both of grace and of
truth, why was not His body in every way perfect? Such perfection of
body seems befitting for Christ, inasmuch as He was already in
possession of the beatific vision and was likewise innocent, for
punishment presupposes some fault. These bodily defects seem also to
be an obstacle to the end of the Incarnation, which was destined to be
a manifestation not only of God's goodness but also of His strength.
Conclusion. Nevertheless it was fitting for the body assumed by the
Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects.
Scriptural proof. St. Paul says of Christ: "For in that,
wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is also able
to succor them that are tempted."[1296] There are likewise
other texts that prove Christ was hungry and tired.
Traditional proof. It is also declared of Christ: "He suffered,
was crucified, and died."[1297] The Church also declared in
the Council of Ephesus: "If anyone does not confess that the Word
of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and
experienced death, ... let him be anathema."[1298]
Theological proof. It was fitting for Christ's body to be subject
to defects, and this for three reasons.
|
1) So as to satisfy for us, by enduring for us the penalty for sin,
namely, death, hunger, thirst, for "by sin death entered into the
world."[1299]
2) That He might establish the truth of His human nature,
suffering truly as a man.
3) That He might give us a most heroic example of patience.
|
|
Reply to first objection. These sufferings are not contrary to the
perfection of Christ's soul, for they are, as it were, the matter
of satisfaction, whose meritorious principle was Christ's eminent
charity. Thus in this reply St. Thomas draws a most admirable
distinction between the matter of satisfaction and its principle or
faculty. The principle of this satisfaction is Christ's love for
God and for souls, and this love was of infinite value because of the
divine personality of the Word incarnate.[1300]
In fact, Christ willed to fear and be weary, so that His holocaust
be perfect, whereas, on the contrary, He preserved certain martyrs
from pain.
Reply to second objection. According to God's will, before
Christ's resurrection the beatitude of His soul did not overflow into
His body, except on the day of His transfiguration. Thus Damascene
says: "It was by the consent of the divine will that the flesh was
allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it, " that is, what
befitted a passible nature. His naturally passible flesh suffered
under the blows inflicted on it.
Reply to third objection. Thus the absolutely innocent Christ was
for us a voluntary victim.
Reply to fourth objection. "And although these infirmities concealed
His Godhead, they made known His manhood, which is the way of
coming to the Godhead." In this bodily infirmity, Christ showed
heroic fortitude, by which He conquered the devil and healed our human
and moral infirmity.
It does not follow, however, from these reasons, as Calvin would
have it, that for Christ truly to satisfy for us, He had to undergo
the punishment of hell deserved by sinners. Satisfaction for the sin
of another does not require that the one who satisfies for the sin of
another should undergo all the penalty that is due to the sin of
another; it suffices that the satisfaction be equivalent, and
Christ's satisfaction was more than this. As St. Thomas says:
"He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the
offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense.
But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God
than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human
race";[1301] for the immense charity of the incarnate Son was
more pleasing to God than all the sins of men were displeasing to
Him, because this act of charity was a theandric act, inasmuch as it
proceeded radically from the person of the Word.
Moreover, if Calvin's argument were valid, then it would follow
that Christ ought to have suffered forever the punishments of hell,
because sinners deserve eternal punishment. Calvin did not consider
that the price of satisfaction, just as the value of merit, is the
result of love. Merit and satisfaction have the same foundation, for
the meritorious work is satisfactory when it is of an afflictive
nature.
|
|
