|
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."
|
|