Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could not be delivered except by God, according to Is. 45:21: "Am not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me." But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.

Objection 2: Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Is. 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will." Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.

Objection 3: Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): "All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth." But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for man's deliverance.

Objection 4: Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the human race.

On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:14): "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting."

I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the word "necessary." In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end---namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Lk. 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Lk. 24:44,46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead."

Reply to Objection 1: This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God's part.

Reply to Objection 2: This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ.

Reply to Objection 3: That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Question 1, Article 2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Rm. 3:24,25: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Eph. 2:4): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ."

Reply to Objection 4: The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man (1, Question 64, Article 2).

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium christum pati pro humani generis liberatione. Humanum enim genus liberari non poterat nisi a deo, secundum illud Isaiae XLV, nunquid non ego dominus, et non est ultra deus absque me? deus iustus et salvans non est praeter me.

In deum autem non cadit aliqua necessitas, quia hoc repugnaret omnipotentiae ipsius. Ergo non fuit necessarium christum pati.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, necessarium voluntario opponitur. Sed christus propria voluntate est passus, dicitur enim Isaiae LIII, oblatus est quia ipse voluit.

Ergo non necessarium fuit eum pati.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut in Psalmo dicitur, universae viae domini misericordia et veritas.

Sed non videtur necessarium quod pateretur ex parte misericordiae divinae, quae, sicut gratis dona tribuit, ita videtur quod gratis debita relaxet, absque satisfactione. Neque etiam ex parte divinae iustitiae, secundum quam homo aeternam damnationem meruerat.

Ergo videtur non fuisse necessarium quod christus pro liberatione hominum pateretur.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, angelica natura est excellentior quam humana, ut patet per dionysium, IV cap. De div. Nom..

Sed pro reparatione angelicae naturae, quae peccaverat, christus non est passus. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam fuerit necessarium eum pati pro salute humani generis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. III, sicut Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, sic oportet exaltari filium hominis, ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.

Quod quidem de exaltatione in cruce intelligitur.

Ergo videtur quod christum oportuerit pati.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus docet in V metaphys., necessarium multipliciter dicitur. Uno quidem modo, quod secundum sui naturam impossibile est aliter se habere.

Et sic manifestum est quod non fuit necessarium christum pati, neque ex parte dei, neque ex parte hominis.

Alio modo dicitur aliquid necessarium ex aliquo exteriori.

Quod quidem si sit causa efficiens vel movens, facit necessitatem coactionis, utpote cum aliquis non potest ire propter violentiam detinentis ipsum. Si vero illud exterius quod necessitatem inducit, sit finis, dicetur aliquid necessarium ex suppositione finis, quando scilicet finis aliquis aut nullo modo potest esse, aut non potest esse convenienter, nisi tali fine praesupposito.

Non fuit ergo necessarium christum pati necessitate coactionis, neque ex parte dei, qui christum definivit pati; neque etiam ex parte ipsius christi, qui voluntarie passus est. Fuit autem necessarium necessitate finis. Qui quidem potest tripliciter intelligi. Primo quidem, ex parte nostra, qui per eius passionem liberati sumus, secundum illud Ioan. III, oportet exaltari filium hominis, ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.

Secundo, ex parte ipsius christi, qui per humilitatem passionis meruit gloriam exaltationis.

Et ad hoc pertinet quod dicitur Luc. Ult., haec oportuit christum pati, et sic intrare in gloriam suam.

Tertio, ex parte dei, cuius definitio est circa passionem christi praenuntiatam in Scripturis et praefiguratam in observantia veteris testamenti.

Et hoc est quod dicitur Luc. XXII, filius hominis secundum quod definitum est vadit; et Luc. Ult., haec sunt verba quae locutus sum ad vos cum adhuc essem vobiscum, quoniam necesse est impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Moysi et prophetis et Psalmis de me; et, quoniam scriptum est quoniam oportebat christum pati et resurgere a mortuis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de necessitate coactionis ex parte dei.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de necessitate coactionis ex parte hominis christi.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod hominem liberari per passionem christi, conveniens fuit et misericordiae et iustitiae eius. Iustitiae quidem, quia per passionem suam christus satisfecit pro peccato humani generis, et ita homo per iustitiam christi liberatus est.

Misericordiae vero, quia, cum homo per se satisfacere non posset pro peccato totius humanae naturae, ut supra habitum est, deus ei satisfactorem dedit filium suum, secundum illud Rom. III, iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem quae est in christo iesu, quem proposuit deus propitiatorem per fidem ipsius.

Et hoc fuit abundantioris misericordiae quam si peccata absque satisfactione dimisisset.

Unde dicitur Ephes. II, deus, qui dives est in misericordia, propter nimiam caritatem qua dilexit nos, cum essemus mortui peccatis, convivificavit nos in christo.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod peccatum Angeli non fuit remediabile, sicut peccatum hominis, ut ex supra dictis in prima parte patet.