Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God ought not to have assumed human nature with defects of body. For as His soul is personally united to the Word of God, so also is His body. But the soul of Christ had every perfection, both of grace and truth, as was said above (Question 7, Article 9; Question 9, seqq.). Hence, His body also ought to have been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it.

Objection 2: Further, the soul of Christ saw the Word of God by the vision wherein the blessed see, as was said above (Question 9, Article 2), and thus the soul of Christ was blessed. Now by the beatification of the soul the body is glorified; since, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios. cxviii), "God made the soul of a nature so strong that from the fulness of its blessedness there pours over even into the lower nature" (i.e. the body), "not indeed the bliss proper to the beatific fruition and vision, but the fulness of health" (i.e. the vigor of incorruptibility). Therefore the body of Christ was incorruptible and without any defect.

Objection 3: Further, penalty is the consequence of fault. But there was no fault in Christ, according to 1 Pt. 2:22: "Who did no guile." Therefore defects of body, which are penalties, ought not to have been in Him.

Objection 4: Further, no reasonable man assumes what keeps him from his proper end. But by such like bodily defects, the end of the Incarnation seems to be hindered in many ways. First, because by these infirmities men were kept back from knowing Him, according to Is. 53:2,3: " that we should be desirous of Him. Despised and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity, and His look was, as it were, hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed Him not." Secondly, because the de. sire of the Fathers would not seem to be fulfilled, in whose person it is written (Is. 51:9): "Arise, arise, put on Thy strength, O Thou Arm of the Lord." Thirdly, because it would seem more fitting for the devil's power to be overcome and man's weakness healed, by strength than by weakness. Therefore it does not seem to have been fitting that the Son of God assumed human nature with infirmities or defects of body.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 2:18): "For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now He came to succor us. hence David said of Him (Ps. 120:1): "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me." Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us.

I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Rm. 5:12: "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Hence it was useful for the end of the Incarnation that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Is. 53:4, "Surely He hath borne our infirmities." Secondly, in order to cause belief in the Incarnation. For since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects, if the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Phil. 2:7: "He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith, as related Jn. 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects. Hence it is said (Heb. 12:3) that He "endured such opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your minds."

Reply to Objection 1: The penalties one suffers for another's sin are the matter, as it were, of the satisfaction for that sin; but the principle is the habit of soul, whereby one is inclined to wish to satisfy for another, and from which the satisfaction has its efficacy, for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity, as will be explained (XP, Question 14, Article 2). Hence, it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfect as regards the habit of knowledge and virtue, in order to have the power of satisfying; but His body was subject to infirmities, that the matter of satisfaction should not be wanting.

Reply to Objection 2: From the natural relationship which is between the soul and the body, glory flows into the body from the soul's glory. Yet this natural relationship in Christ was subject to the will of His Godhead, and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude remained in the soul, and did not flow into the body; but the flesh suffered what belongs to a passible nature; thus Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15) that, "it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it."

Reply to Objection 3: Punishment always follows sin actual or original, sometimes of the one punished, sometimes of the one for whom he who suffers the punishment satisfies. And so it was with Christ, according to Is. 53:5: "He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our sins."

Reply to Objection 4: The infirmity assumed by Christ did not impede, but greatly furthered the end of the Incarnation, as above stated. And although these infirmities concealed His Godhead, they made known His Manhood, which is the way of coming to the Godhead, according to Rm. 5:1,2: "By Jesus Christ we have access to God." Moreover, the ancient Fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ, but spiritual strength, wherewith He vanquished the devil and healed human weakness.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod filius dei non debuit assumere naturam humanam cum corporis defectibus. Sicut enim anima unita est verbo dei personaliter, ita et corpus. Sed anima christi habuit omnimodam perfectionem, et quantum ad gratiam et quantum ad scientiam, ut supra dictum est.

Ergo etiam corpus eius debuit esse omnibus modis perfectum, nullum in se habens defectum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, anima christi videbat verbum dei ea visione qua beati vident, ut supra dictum est, et sic anima christi erat beata. Sed ex beatitudine animae glorificatur corpus, dicit enim Augustinus, in epistola ad dioscorum, tam potenti natura deus fecit animam ut ex eius plenissima beatitudine redundet etiam in inferiorem naturam, quae est corpus, non beatitudo, quae fruentis et intelligentis est propria, sed plenitudo sanitatis, idest incorruptionis vigor.

Corpus igitur christi fuit incorruptibile, et absque omni defectu.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, poena consequitur culpam. Sed in christo non fuit aliqua culpa, secundum illud I Pet. II, qui peccatum non fecit.

Ergo nec defectus corporales, qui sunt poenales, in eo esse debuerunt.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, nullus sapiens assumit id quod impedit illum a proprio fine. Sed per huiusmodi defectus corporales multipliciter videtur impediri finis incarnationis. Primo quidem, quia propter huiusmodi infirmitates homines ab eius cognitione impediebantur, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, desideravimus eum; despectum et novissimum virorum, virum dolorum et scientem infirmitatem, et quasi absconditus est vultus eius et despectus; unde nec reputavimus eum.

Secundo, quia sanctorum patrum desiderium non videtur impleri, ex quorum persona dicitur Isaiae LI, consurge, consurge, induere fortitudinem, brachium domini.

Tertio, quia congruentius per fortitudinem quam per infirmitatem videbatur potestas diaboli posse superari, et humana infirmitas posse sanari. Non ergo videtur conveniens fuisse quod filius dei humanam naturam assumpserit cum corporalibus infirmitatibus sive defectibus.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Heb. II, in eo in quo passus est ipse et tentatus, potens est et eis qui tentantur auxiliari.

Sed ad hoc venit ut nos adiuvaret, unde et David dicebat, levavi oculos meos in montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi.

Ergo conveniens fuit quod filius dei carnem assumpserit humanis infirmitatibus subiacentem, ut in ea posset pati et tentari, et sic auxilium nobis ferre.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum conveniens fuisse corpus assumptum a filio dei humanis infirmitatibus et defectibus subiacere, et praecipue propter tria. Primo quidem, quia ad hoc filius dei, carne assumpta, venit in mundum, ut pro peccato humani generis satisfaceret. Unus autem pro peccato alterius satisfacit dum poenam peccato alterius debitam in seipsum suscipit. Huiusmodi autem defectus corporales, scilicet mors, fames et sitis, et huiusmodi, sunt poena peccati, quod est in mundum per Adam introductum, secundum illud Rom. V, per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors.

Unde conveniens fuit, quantum ad finem incarnationis, quod huiusmodi poenalitates in nostra carne susciperet, vice nostra, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, vere languores nostros ipse tulit.

Secundo, propter fidem incarnationis adstruendam. Cum enim natura humana non aliter esset nota hominibus nisi prout huiusmodi corporalibus defectibus subiacet, si sine his defectibus filius dei naturam humanam assumpsisset, videretur non fuisse verus homo, nec veram carnem habuisse, sed phantasticam, ut Manichaei dixerunt. Et ideo, ut dicitur philipp. II, exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inventus ut homo.

Unde et thomas per aspectum vulnerum ad fidem est revocatus, ut dicitur Ioan. XX.

Tertio, propter exemplum patientiae, quod nobis exhibet passiones et defectus humanos fortiter tolerando.

Unde dicitur Heb. XII, sustinuit a peccatoribus adversus semetipsum contradictionem, ut non fatigemini, animis vestris deficientes.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod satisfactio pro peccato alterius habet quidem quasi materiam poenas quas aliquis pro peccato alterius sustinet, sed pro principio habet habitum animae ex quo inclinatur ad volendum satisfacere pro alio, et ex quo satisfactio efficaciam habet; non enim esset satisfactio efficax nisi ex caritate procederet, ut infra dicetur.

Et ideo oportuit animam christi perfectam esse quantum ad habitus scientiarum et virtutum, ut haberet facultatem satisfaciendi, et quod corpus eius subiectum esset infirmitatibus, ut ei satisfactionis materia non deesset.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum naturalem habitudinem quae est inter animam et corpus, ex gloria animae redundat gloria ad corpus, sed haec naturalis habitudo in christo subiacebat voluntati divinitatis ipsius, ex qua factum est ut beatitudo remaneret in anima et non derivaretur ad corpus, sed caro pateretur quae conveniunt naturae passibili; secundum illud quod dicit Damascenus, quod beneplacito divinae voluntatis permittebatur carni pati et operari quae propria.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod poena semper sequitur culpam, actualem vel originalem, quandoque quidem eius qui punitur; quandoque autem alterius, pro quo ille qui patitur poenas satisfacit. Et sic accidit in christo, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, ipse vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras; attritus est propter scelera nostra.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod infirmitas assumpta a christo non impedivit finem incarnationis, sed maxime promovit, ut dictum est.

Et quamvis per huiusmodi infirmitates absconderetur eius divinitas, manifestabatur tamen humanitas, quae est via ad divinitatem perveniendi, secundum illud Rom. V, accessum habemus ad deum per iesum christum.

Desiderabant autem antiqui patres in christo, non quidem fortitudinem corporalem, sed spiritualem, per quam et diabolum vicit et humanam infirmitatem sanavit.