|
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no anger in Christ. For
it is written (James 1:20): "The anger of man worketh not the
justice of God." Now whatever was in Christ pertained to the
justice of God, since of Him it is written (1 Cor. 1:30):
"For He of God is made unto us . . . justice." Therefore it
seems that there was no anger in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, anger is opposed to meekness, as is plain
from Ethic. iv, 5. But Christ was most meek. Therefore there
was no anger in Him.
Objection 3: Further, Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that
"anger that comes of evil blinds the eye of the mind, but anger that
comes of zeal disturbs it." Now the mind's eye in Christ was
neither blinded nor disturbed. Therefore in Christ there was neither
sinful anger nor zealous anger.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 2:17) that the words of
Ps. 58:10, "the zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up," were
fulfilled in Him.
I answer that, As was said in the FS, Question 46, Article
3, ad 3, and SS, Question 158, Article 2, ad 3, anger
is an effect of sorrow. or when sorrow is inflicted upon someone,
there arises within him a desire of the sensitive appetite to repel this
injury brought upon himself or others. Hence anger is a passion
composed of sorrow and the desire of revenge. Now it was said
(Article 6) that sorrow could be in Christ. As to the desire of
revenge it is sometimes with sin, i.e. when anyone seeks revenge
beyond the order of reason: and in this way anger could not be in
Christ, for this kind of anger is sinful. Sometimes, however, this
desire is without sin---nay, is praiseworthy, e.g. when anyone
seeks revenge according to justice, and this is zealous anger. For
Augustine says (on Jn. 2:17) that "he is eaten up by zeal for
the house of God, who seeks to better whatever He sees to be evil in
it, and if he cannot right it, bears with it and sighs." Such was
the anger that was in Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory says (Moral. v), anger is in
man in two ways---sometimes it forestalls reason, and causes it to
operate, and in this way it is properly said to work, for operations
are attributed to the principal agent. It is in this way that we must
understand that "the anger of man worketh not the justice of God."
Sometimes anger follows reason, and is, as it were, its instrument,
and then the operation, which pertains to justice, is not attributed
to anger but to reason.
Reply to Objection 2: It is the anger which outsteps the bounds of
reason that is opposed to meekness, and not the anger which is
controlled and brought within its proper bounds by reason, for meekness
holds the mean in anger.
Reply to Objection 3: In us the natural order is that the soul's
powers mutually impede each other, i.e. if the operation of one power
is intense, the operation of the other is weakened. This is the
reason why any movement whatsoever of anger, even if it be tempered by
reason, dims the mind's eye of him who contemplates. But in
Christ, by control of the Divine power, "every faculty was allowed
to do what was proper to it," and one power was not impeded by
another. Hence, as the joy of His mind in contemplation did not
impede the sorrow or pain of the inferior part, so, conversely, the
passions of the inferior part no-wise impeded the act of reason.
|
|