That Path of Truth: A Reading of Summa Theologicae IIIa, q. 46-49

“Our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, as he was, according to the Angels’ witness, saving his people from their sins, showed in his own Person that path of truth which, in rising again, we can follow to the blessedness of eternal life.” ST, IIIa, prologue.

Rubric

In seeking to summarise the line of reasoning proposed by Aquinas in ST IIIa, q. 46-49 one is faced with a Sisyphean task. It becomes obvious that to Thomas word order and logical arrangement are paramount to his task. Couple this with his desire for clarity, no doubt linked to the nature of the Summa, and one is left with what is, to all intents, a summary (summa) of the Christian faith which is not in need of further distillation. In view of this, the quaestiones at hand will not be reviewed per se but rather those themes which seem to obtrude the text will be explored so as to further illumine the text.

Necessity

The perennial topic explored by the theologians studied thus far in the course has focused upon the idea of the ‘necessity’ of the Incarnation, suffering and death of Jesus Christ. Thomas is no different but, in placing the discussion of the topic at the outset of his section on the Passion (ST IIIa. q. 46 a. 1), he begins his talk of the Passion with this idea of necessity: “It does not seem necessary that Christ should have had to suffer in order to free mankind.” (ST IIIa. q. 46 a. 1) To start from this idea of necessity is not to open a theological ‘can of worms’ and battle out the old clichéd disputes but is, for Thomas, the establishment of a key theme for the following four questions. In affirming that there must be some idea of necessity at work in the Passion of Christ (citing John 3:14 “as Moses was lifted up in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up”) Thomas follows Aristotle in positing many uses of the word ‘necessity’. In contrasting ‘necessity of compulsion’, arising from some efficient or moving cause, with the idea of ‘necessity of a desired end’ (finis dicitur) Thomas can state that there is no necessity bounding God here. God is after all, God. However, an extrinsic cause could induce necessity without which, “the objective either cannot be maintained at all or cannot be otherwise be so well attained.” (ST, IIIa, q. 46, a. 1, resp.) In exploring this further, Thomas highlights three aspects of this necessity, the third of which is vital for the remainder of his work on the Passion:
1 – for our sake; so that we might not perish.
2 – for his sake; so that he might be exalted (of which more later).
3 – for God’s sake; “for his [God’s] decree concerning Christ’s passion as announced in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament had to be fulfilled.


‘Fittingness’

Thus, we reach the theme of conveniens or ‘fittingness’. The Passion was necessary in that without it, the goal which Christ chose willingly (e.g., the liberation of humanity), could not have been achieved so convenienter. Does this mean that God could not have saved humanity by some other method? No! In principle, God could have freed humanity from sin without any of the ideas that Thomas goes on to talk about – God is the measure of justice not the one who acquiesces to justice. However, in providing salvation in the way he did, by the satisfactio offered by the Incarnate Christ, God showed the world greater mercy than has he simply offered an effortless reconciliation.

To explain this further, we need to explore the next proposition that Thomas submits: was there a better way to free man than the passion of Christ? (ST, IIIa, q. 46, a. 3) We know that the Passion of Christ was preferable to a simple reconciliation but perhaps there is some more ‘fitting’ way than the Passion to free humanity from sin? In other words, how is fittingness determined? Here Thomas offers the following line: “A means is the more appropriate (convenientior) for the end, as it brings together more assets towards the end.” (ST, IIIa, q. 46, a. 3, resp.) Thus, because of the particular Passion of Christ, “many things having to do with man’s salvation over and above liberation from sin also converged” (ST, IIIa, q. 46, a. 3, resp.) Following this, Thomas gives five such ‘assets’ which can be seen in the text. Thus we see Thomas utilising the methods used by previous patristic and early mediaeval traditions, but in a more highly structured way.

Symbolism

This is seen by his parallel use of symbolism alongside the idea of ‘fittingness’. In the ensuing treatment on the question of why primarily a cross must be used in the Passion of Christ (ST, IIIa, q. 46, a. 4), Thomas cites Gregory of Nyssa: “The form of the Cross radiates out from the centre in four different directions, thus denoting the universal diffusion of power and providence of him who hung upon it.” (In Christi Resurrectionem, 1, P.G. 46, 624) Again, although this instance portrays a ‘cosmic’ symbolism there is also an idea of ‘biblical’ symbolism which pervades Thomas’ thought: “The tree of man’s defeat became his tree of victory; where life was lost, there life had been restored.” (Augustine, Sermo 32 de Passione, P.L. 39, 1808) How do we see the argument for the ‘fittingness’ of the Cross? In so far as, in the cosmic and the biblical symbolism utilised by Thomas, the human mind is imaginatively ‘satisfied’. It is central to the anthropology of Thomas that nothing can be truly known unless it is mediated by some form of sense appearance (cf. ST, Ia, q. 84, a. 7). Thus, in this way also, the Passion of Christ and his death on a cross are argued from a position of ‘fittingness’ – not only some abstract idea of continuity, but also in that it epistemologically (yet concretely) satisfies the human mind.


Torah – the Old Law AND the New

In talking of ‘fittingness’ we have inadvertently stumbled across another key theme in Thomas’ soteriology; the idea of the Old Testament Torah functioning decidedly within any talk of the work of Christ. When talking about the necessity of Christ’s Passion we quoted the following: “his viz. God’s decree concerning Christ’s Passion as announced in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament had to be fulfilled.” (ST, IIIa, q. 46. a. 2) Thus, tied into the idea that “veritas enim debet respondere” (reality should correspond to the figure) comes this very concrete aspect to the Passion of Christ of fulfilment of the Torah. Not only on the epistemological level did Christ have to be seen to be fulfilling the figures of the past (i.e. dying on a tree vs. the tree in Eden, etc.) but an actual fulfilment of the law was vital to Thomas’ idea of Christ’s Passion.

This can be seen most helpfully in the 2nd article of the 47th question: in asking whether or not Christ was obedient in his death Thomas emphasizes the notion of fulfilment in Christ’s obedience. “As the Old Law reached its consummation in Jesus’ death, according to the words, It is consummated (John 19:30), uttered by the dying Christ, we may say that he fulfilled by his suffering all the precepts of the Old Law” (ST, IIIa, q. 47, a. 2, resp. 1) Thomas divides the Old Law into three aspects: moral precept (based on the command of charity – to show how much he loved the Father and the world, his neighbours), ceremonial precept (sacrifice – the offering of a sactifactio by Christ), juridical precept (with respect to justice or iustitia – Christ dies for the restoration of right order in humanity).

Matthew Levering, one of the few scholars to actually address Thomas’ theology of the Passion (to its detriment I might add), suggests that each of these precepts corresponds to the three offices of Christ (triplex munus). There is not the space to explore this further, but the best summary of his view can be read in his chapter on ‘The Cross of Christ” in Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple.

Temple

One final theme which repeatedly finds its way into these few questions is the idea of the Church of Christ and Christ’s mission for the Church in the Passion. Firstly, the strong definition of the Church is constantly repeated and is vital to some of the arguments for the efficacy of the Passion from Christ to man. This is embodied in the idea of the una mystica persona – the one mystical person (ST IIIa, q. 48, a. 2, ad i) It is in this person of Christ that the church find its albeit mysterious and yet actual identity. In understanding this we can see the transfer of merit from Christ the head (caput) onto the various members thus making Christ’s passion efficacious for us. The corollary of this is the strong doctrine of ecclesiology which posits itself from this position. In tandem with this, the sacraments become important as actualizing this mystical union of the Church with God and in the sacraments the church finds its assurance so that centuries later Luther can shout to the devil’s doubts, “Baptizatus sum!”.