Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should die. For a first principle in any order is not affected by anything contrary to such order: thus fire, which is the principle of heat, can never become cold. But the Son of God is the fountain-head and principle of all life, according to Ps. 35:10: "With Thee is the fountain of life." Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to die.

Objection 2: Further, death is a greater defect than sickness, because it is through sickness that one comes to die. But it was not beseeming for Christ to languish from sickness, as Chrysostom says. Consequently, neither was it becoming for Christ to die.

Objection 3: Further, our Lord said (Jn. 10:10): "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." But one opposite does not lead to another. Therefore it seems that neither was it fitting for Christ to die.

On the contrary, It is written, (Jn. 11:50): "It is expedient that one man should die for the people . . . that the whole nation perish not": which words were spoken prophetically by Caiphas, as the Evangelist testifies.

I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to satisfy for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin, according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat of it ye shall die the death." Now it is a fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty deserved by that other. And so Christ resolved to die, that by dying He might atone for us, according to 1 Pt. 3:18: "Christ also died once for our sins." Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed. For, as Eusebius says (Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), "if, after dwelling among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though shunning death, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom." Thirdly, that by dying He might deliver us from fearing death: hence it is written (Heb. 2:14,15) that He communicated "to flesh and blood, that through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death and might deliver them who, through the fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to servitude." Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the likeness of sin---that is, to its penalty---He might set us the example of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written (Rm. 6:10): "For in that He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God: so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God." Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and manifesting His power whereby He overthrew death, He might instill into us the hope of rising from the dead. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:12): "If Christ be preached that He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection from the dead?"

Reply to Objection 1: Christ is the fountain of life, as God, and not as man: but He died as man, and not as God. Hence Augustine says against Felician: "Far be it from us to suppose that Christ so felt death that He lost His life inasmuch as He is life in Himself; for, were it so, the fountain of life would have run dry. Accordingly, He experienced death by sharing in our human feeling, which of His own accord He had taken upon Himself, but He did not lose the power of His Nature, through which He gives life to all things."

Reply to Objection 2: Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He endured death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself, that His death might be shown to be a voluntary one.

Reply to Objection 3: One opposite does not of itself lead to the other, yet it does so indirectly at times: thus cold sometimes is the indirect cause of heat: and in this way Christ by His death brought us back to life, when by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears another's punishment takes such punishment away.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens christum mori. Illud enim quod est primum principium in aliquo genere, non disponitur per id quod est contrarium illi generi, sicut ignis, qui est principium caloris, nunquam potest esse frigidus. Sed filius dei est principium et fons omnis vitae, secundum illud Psalmi, apud te est fons vitae.

Ergo videtur quod non fuerit conveniens christum mori.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, maior est defectus mortis quam morbi, quia per morbum pervenitur ad mortem.

Sed non fuit conveniens christum aliquo morbo languescere, ut chrysostomus dicit.

Ergo etiam non fuit conveniens christum mori.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, dominus dicit, Ioan. X, ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant.

Sed oppositum non perducit ad oppositum. Ergo videtur quod non fuit conveniens christum mori.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. XI, expedit ut moriatur unus homo pro populo, ut non tota gens pereat, quod quidem caiphas prophetice dixit, ut evangelista testatur.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit christum mori. Primo quidem, ad satisfaciendum pro humano genere, quod erat morti adiudicatum propter peccatum, secundum illud Gen. II, quacumque die comederitis, morte moriemini.

Est autem conveniens satisfaciendi pro alio modus cum aliquis se subiicit poenae quam alius meruit. Et ideo christus mori voluit, ut, moriendo, pro nobis satisfaceret, secundum illud I Pet. III, christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est.

Secundo, ad ostendendum veritatem naturae assumptae.

Sicut enim eusebius dicit, si aliter, post conversationem cum hominibus, evanescens subito evolaret fugiens mortem, ab omnibus compararetur phantasmati.

Tertio ut, moriendo, nos a timore mortis liberaret.

Unde dicitur Heb. II, quod communicavit carni et sanguini, ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium, et liberaret eos qui timore mortis per totam vitam obnoxii erant servituti.

Quarto ut, corporaliter moriendo similitudini peccati, idest poenalitati, daret nobis exemplum moriendi spiritualiter peccato.

Unde dicitur Rom. VI, quod enim mortuus est peccato, mortuus est semel, quod autem vivit, vivit deo. Ita et vos existimate mortuos esse peccato, viventes autem deo.

Quinto ut, a mortuis resurgendo, virtutem suam ostenderet, qua mortem superavit, et nobis spem resurgendi a mortuis daret.

Unde apostolus dicit, I Cor. XV, si christus praedicatur quod resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo quidam in vobis dicunt quod resurrectio mortuorum non erit?

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod christus est fons vitae secundum quod deus, non autem secundum quod homo.

Mortuus autem est non secundum quod deus, sed secundum quod homo.

Unde Augustinus dicit, contra felicianum, absit ut christus sic senserit mortem ut, quantum est in se vita, vitam perdiderit. Si enim hoc ita esset, vitae fons aruisset.

Sensit igitur mortem participatione humani affectus, quem sponte susceperat, non naturae suae perdidit potentiam, per quam cuncta vivificat.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod christus non sustinuit mortem ex morbo provenientem, ne videretur ex necessitate mori propter infirmitatem naturae. Sed sustinuit mortem ab exteriori illatam, cui se spontaneum obtulit, ut mors eius voluntaria ostenderetur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod unum oppositorum per se non ducit ad aliud, sed quandoque per accidens, sicut frigidum quandoque per accidens calefacit. Et hoc modo christus per suam mortem nos perduxit ad vitam, quia de sua morte mortem nostram destruxit, sicut ille qui poenam pro alio sustinet, removet poenam eius.