|
Objection 1: It would seem that we may not say that Christ was
subject to the Father. For everything subject to the Father is a
creature, since, as is said in De Eccles. Dogm. iv, "in the
Trinity there is no dependence or subjection." But we cannot say
simply that Christ is a creature, as was stated above (Question
16, Article 8). Therefore we cannot say simply that Christ is
subject to God the Father.
Objection 2: Further, a thing is said to be subject to God when it
is subservient to His dominion. But we cannot attribute subservience
to the human nature of Christ; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth.
iii, 21): "We must bear in mind that we may not call it"
(i.e. Christ's human nature) "a servant; for the words
'subservience' and 'domination' are not names of the nature, but of
relations, as the words 'paternity' and 'filiation.'" Hence
Christ in His human nature is not subject to God the Father.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 15:28):
"And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also
Himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him."
But, as is written (Heb. 2:8): "We see not as yet all things
subject to Him." Hence He is not yet subject to the Father, Who
has subjected all things to Him.
On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 14:28), "The Father
is greater than I"; and Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7):
"It is not without reason that the Scripture mentions both, that the
Son is equal to the Father and the Father greater than the Son, for
the first is said on account of the form of God, and the second on
account of the form of a servant, without any confusion." Now the
less is subject to the greater. Therefore in the form of a servant
Christ is subject to the Father.
I answer that, Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is
proper to that nature. Now human nature from its beginning has a
threefold subjection to God. The first regards the degree of
goodness, inasmuch as the Divine Nature is the very essence of
goodness as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) while a created
nature has a participation of the Divine goodness, being subject, so
to say, to the rays of this goodness. Secondly, human nature is
subject to God, as regards God's power, inasmuch as human nature,
even as every creature, is subject to the operation of the Divine
ordinance. Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to God
through its proper act, inasmuch as by its own will it obeys His
command. This triple subjection to God Christ professes of
Himself. The first (Mt. 19:17): "Why askest thou Me
concerning good? One is good, God." And on this Jerome remarks:
"He who had called Him a good master, and had not confessed Him to
be God or the Son of God, learns that no man, however holy, is
good in comparison with God." And hereby He gave us to understand
that He Himself, in His human nature, did not attain to the height
of Divine goodness. And because "in such things as are great, but
not in bulk, to be great is the same as to be good," as Augustine
says (De Trin. vi, 8), for this reason the Father is said to be
greater than Christ in His human nature. The second subjection is
attributed to Christ, inasmuch as all that befell Christ is believed
to have happened by Divine appointment; hence Dionysius says
(Coel. Hier. iv) that Christ "is subject to the ordinance of
God the Father." And this is the subjection of subservience,
whereby "every creature serves God" (Judith 16:17), being
subject to His ordinance, according to Wis. 16:24: "The
creature serving Thee the Creator." And in this way the Son of
God (Phil. 2:7) is said to have taken "the form of a
servant." The third subjection He attributes to Himself, saying
(Jn. 8:29): "I do always the things that please Him." And
this is the subjection to the Father, of obedience unto death. Hence
it is written (Phil. 2:8) that he became "obedient" to the
Father "unto death."
Reply to Objection 1: As we are not to understand that Christ is a
creature simply, but only in His human nature, whether this
qualification be added or not, as stated above (Question 16,
Article 8), so also we are to understand that Christ is subject to
the Father not simply but in His human nature, even if this
qualification be not added; and yet it is better to add this
qualification in order to avoid the error of Arius, who held the Son
to be less than the Father.
Reply to Objection 2: The relation of subservience and dominion is
based upon action and passion, inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to
be moved by the will of his master. Now to act is not attributed to
the nature as agent, but to the person, since "acts belong to
supposita and to singulars," according to the Philosopher (Metaph.
i, 1). Nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that
whereby the person or hypostasis acts. Hence, although the nature is
not properly said to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may
be properly said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature. And
in this way nothing prevents Christ being subject or servant to the
Father in human nature.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8):
"Christ will give the kingdom to God and the Father, when He has
brought the faithful, over whom He now reigns by faith, to the
vision," i.e. to see the essence common to the Father and the
Son: and then He will be totally subject to the Father not only in
Himself, but also in His members by the full participation of the
Godhead. And then all things will be fully subject to Him by the
final accomplishment of His will concerning them; although even now
all things are subject to Him as regards His power, according to
Mt. 28:18: "All power is given to Me in heaven and in
earth."
|
|