Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He was. For it is written (Mt. 21:38) that the husbandmen seeing the son said within themselves: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." On this Jerome remarks: "Our Lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not from ignorance, but out of envy: for they understood that it was He to whom the Father says by the Prophet: 'Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance.'" It seems, therefore, that they knew Him to be Christ or the Son of God.

Objection 2: Further, our Lord says (Jn. 15:24): "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now what is seen is known manifestly. Therefore the Jews, knowing Christ, inflicted the Passion on Him out of hatred.

Objection 3: Further, it is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, cap. x): "Just as he who tears up the imperial message is doomed to die, as despising the prince's word; so the Jew, who crucified Him whom he had seen, will pay the penalty for daring to lay his hands on God the Word Himself." Now this would not be so had they not known Him to be the Son of God, because their ignorance would have excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in crucifying Christ knew Him to be the Son of God.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And (Acts 3:17), Peter, addressing the Jews, says: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers." Likewise the Lord hanging upon the cross said: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).

I answer that, Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, "that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jn. 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (Jn. 15:24): "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."

But those of lesser degree---namely, the common folk---who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated Jn. 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"---namely, because they were seduced by the rulers.

Reply to Objection 1: Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard; and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to be the heir, inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in the Law, but the words of Ps. 2:8 seem to militate against this answer: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance"; which are addressed to Him of whom it is said: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." If, then, they knew Him to be the one to whom the words were addressed: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance," it follows that they knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says upon the same passage that "they knew Him to be the Son of God." Bede likewise, commenting on the words, "For they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34), says: "It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather than acknowledge Him." But to this it may be replied that they knew Him to be the Son of God, not from His Nature, but from the excellence of His singular grace.

Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was verily the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: yet out of hatred and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have known that He was the Son of God.

Reply to Objection 2: The words quoted are preceded by the following: "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin"; and then follow the words: "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now all this shows that while they beheld Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not know Him to be the Son of God.

Reply to Objection 3: Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as of God.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod persecutores christi eum cognoverunt.

Dicitur enim Matth. XXI, quod agricolae, videntes filium, dixerunt intra se, hic est heres, venite, occidamus eum.

Ubi dicit Hieronymus, manifestissime dominus probat his verbis Iudaeorum principes non per ignorantiam, sed per invidiam dei filium crucifixisse.

Intellexerunt enim esse illum cui pater per prophetam dicit, postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam.

Ergo videtur quod cognoverunt eum esse christum, vel filium dei.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Ioan. XV dominus dixit, nunc autem et viderunt et oderunt et me et patrem meum.

Quod autem videtur, manifeste cognoscitur. Ergo Iudaei, cognoscentes christum, ex causa odii ei passionem intulerunt.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, in quodam sermone ephesini Concilii dicitur, sicut qui chartam imperialem disrumpit, tanquam imperatoris disrumpens verbum, ad mortem adducitur, sic crucifigens Iudaeus quem viderat, poenas dabit tanquam in ipsum deum verbum praesumptiones iniiciens.

Hoc autem non esset si eum dei filium esse non cognoverunt, quia ignorantia eos excusasset. Ergo videtur quod Iudaei crucifigentes christum cognoverunt eum esse filium dei.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur I Cor. II, si cognovissent, nunquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent.

Et Act. III dicit Petrus, Iudaeis loquens, scio quod per ignorantiam fecistis sicut et principes vestri.

Et dominus, in cruce pendens, dixit, pater, dimitte illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod apud Iudaeos quidam erant maiores, et quidam minores. Maiores quidem, qui eorum principes dicebantur, cognoverunt, ut dicitur in libro quaest. Nov. Et vet. Test., sicut et Daemones cognoverunt, eum esse christum promissum in lege, omnia enim signa videbant in eo quae dixerant futura prophetae.

Mysterium autem divinitatis eius ignorabant, et ideo apostolus dixit quod, si cognovissent, nunquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent.

Sciendum tamen quod eorum ignorantia non eos excusabat a crimine, quia erat quodammodo ignorantia affectata. Videbant enim evidentia signa ipsius divinitatis, sed ex odio et invidia christi ea pervertebant, et verbis eius, quibus se dei filium fatebatur, credere noluerunt.

Unde ipse de eis dicit, Ioan. XV, si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent, nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo.

Et postea subdit, si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent.

Et sic ex persona eorum accipi potest quod dicitur iob XXI, dixerunt deo, recede a nobis, scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus.

Minores vero, idest populares, qui mysteria Scripturae non noverant, non plene cognoverunt ipsum esse nec christum nec filium dei, licet aliqui eorum etiam in eum crediderint. Multitudo tamen non credidit. Et si aliquando dubitarent an ipse esset christus, propter signorum multitudinem, et efficaciam doctrinae, ut habetur Ioan. VII, tamen postea decepti fuerunt a suis principibus ut eum non crederent neque filium dei neque christum. Unde et Petrus eis dixit, scio quod per ignorantiam hoc fecistis, sicut et principes vestri, quia scilicet per principes seducti erant.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa verba dicuntur ex persona colonorum vineae, per quos significantur rectores illius populi, qui eum cognoverunt esse heredem, inquantum cognoverunt eum esse christum promissum in lege.

Sed contra hanc responsionem videtur esse quod illa verba Psalmi, postula a me et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam, eidem dicuntur cui dicitur, filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te.

Si ergo cognoverunt eum esse illum cui dictum est, postula a me et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam, sequitur quod cognoverunt eum esse filium dei.

Chrysostomus etiam, ibidem, dicit quod cognoverunt eum esse filium dei.

Beda etiam dicit, super illud Luc. XXIII, quia nesciunt quid faciunt, notandum, inquit, quod non pro eis orat qui, quem filium dei intellexerunt, crucifigere quam confiteri maluerunt.

Sed ad hoc potest responderi quod cognoverunt eum esse filium dei non per naturam, sed per excellentiam gratiae singularis.

Possumus tamen dicere quod etiam verum dei filium cognovisse dicuntur, quia evidentia signa huius rei habebant, quibus tamen assentire propter odium et invidiam noluerunt, ut eum cognoscerent esse filium dei.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ante illa verba praemittitur, si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent, et postea subditur, nunc autem viderunt, et oderunt et me et patrem meum.

Per quod ostenditur quod, videntes opera christi mirifica, ex odio processit quod eum filium dei non cognoverunt.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ignorantia affectata non excusat a culpa sed magis videtur culpam aggravare, ostendit enim hominem sic vehementer esse affectum ad peccandum quod vult ignorantiam incurrere ne peccatum vitet. Et ideo Iudaei peccaverunt, non solum hominis christi, sed tanquam dei crucifixores.