lv: "The Saviour did everything in its proper place and season."
Reply Obj. 1: Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of the moon, when the Jews sacrificed the Pasch: hence it is stated (John 18:28) that the Jews "went not into Pilate"s hall" on the day of the Pa.s.sion, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch." Upon this Chrysostom observes (Hom. lx.x.xii in Joan.): "The Jews celebrated the Pasch then; but He celebrated the Pasch on the previous day, reserving His own slaying until the Friday, when the old Pasch was kept." And this appears to tally with the statement (John 13:1-5) that "before the festival day of the Pasch ... when supper was done" ... Christ washed "the feet of the disciples."
But Matthew"s account (26:17) seems opposed to this; that "on the first day of the Azymes the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch?" From which, as Jerome says, "since the fourteenth day of the first month is called the day of the Azymes, when the lamb was slain, and when it was full moon," it is quite clear that Christ kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth. And this comes out more clearly from Mk. 14:12: "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch," etc.; and from Luke 22:7: "The day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the Pasch should be killed."
Consequently, then, others say that Christ ate the Pasch with His disciples on the proper day--that is, on the fourteenth day of the moon--"showing thereby that up to the last day He was not opposed to the law," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lx.x.xi in Matth.): but that the Jews, being busied in compa.s.sing Christ"s death against the law, put off celebrating the Pasch until the following day. And on this account it is said of them that on the day of Christ"s Pa.s.sion they were unwilling to enter Pilate"s hall, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch."
But even this solution does not tally with Mark, who says: "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch."
Consequently Christ and the Jews celebrated the ancient Pasch at the one time. And as Bede says on Luke 22:7, 8: "Although Christ who is our Pasch was slain on the following day--that is, on the fifteenth day of the moon--nevertheless, on the night when the Lamb was sacrificed, delivering to the disciples to be celebrated, the mysteries of His body and blood, and being held and bound by the Jews, He hallowed the opening of His own immolation--that is, of His Pa.s.sion."
But the words (John 13:1) "Before the festival day of the Pasch" are to be understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon, which then fell upon the Thursday: for the fifteenth day of the moon was the most solemn day of the Pasch with the Jews: and so the same day which John calls "before the festival day of the Pasch," on account of the natural distinction of days, Matthew calls the first day of the unleavened bread, because, according to the rite of the Jewish festivity, the solemnity began from the evening of the preceding day.
When it is said, then, that they were going to eat the Pasch on the fifteenth day of the month, it is to be understood that the Pasch there is not called the Paschal lamb, which was sacrificed on the fourteenth day, but the Paschal food--that is, the unleavened bread--which had to be eaten by the clean. Hence Chrysostom in the same pa.s.sage gives another explanation, that the Pasch can be taken as meaning the whole feast of the Jews, which lasted seven days.
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): ""It was about the sixth hour" when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be crucified," as John relates. For it "was not quite the sixth hour, but about the sixth--that is, it was after the fifth, and when part of the sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended--that the darkness began, when Christ hung upon the cross. It is understood to have been the third hour when the Jews clamored for the Lord to be crucified: and it is most clearly shown that they crucified Him when they clamored out. Therefore, lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime from the Jews to the soldiers, he says: "It was the third hour, and they crucified Him," that they before all may be found to have crucified Him, who at the third hour clamored for His crucifixion. Although there are not wanting some persons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the third hour, which John recalls, saying: "It was the Parasceve, about the sixth hour." For "Parasceve" is interpreted "preparation." But the true Pasch, which was celebrated in the Lord"s Pa.s.sion, began to be prepared from the ninth hour of the night--namely, when the chief priests said: "He is deserving of death."" According to John, then, "the sixth hour of the Parasceve" lasts from that hour of the night down to Christ"s crucifixion; while, according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day.
Still, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the error of a Greek transcriber: since the characters employed by them to represent 3 and 6 are somewhat alike.
Reply Obj. 3: According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lv, "our Lord willed to redeem and reform the world by His Pa.s.sion, at the time of year at which He had created it--that is, at the equinox. It is then that day grows upon night; because by our Saviour"s Pa.s.sion we are brought from darkness to light." And since the perfect enlightening will come about at Christ"s second coming, therefore the season of His second coming is compared (Matt. 24:32, 33) to the summer in these words: "When the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is nigh: so you also, when you shall see all these things, know ye that it is nigh even at the doors." And then also shall be Christ"s greatest exaltation.
Reply Obj. 4: Christ willed to suffer while yet young, for three reasons. First of all, to commend the more His love by giving up His life for us when He was in His most perfect state of life. Secondly, because it was not becoming for Him to show any decay of nature nor to be subject to disease, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 4). Thirdly, that by dying and rising at an early age Christ might exhibit beforehand in His own person the future condition of those who rise again. Hence it is written (Eph. 4:13): "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of G.o.d, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ."
_______________________
TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 10]
Whether Christ Suffered in a Suitable Place?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable place. For Christ suffered according to His human nature, which was conceived in Nazareth and born in Bethlehem. Consequently it seems that He ought not to have suffered in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth or Bethlehem.
Obj. 2: Further, the reality ought to correspond with the figure. But Christ"s Pa.s.sion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, and these were offered up in the Temple. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have suffered in the Temple, and not outside the city gate.
Obj. 3: Further, the medicine should correspond with the disease. But Christ"s Pa.s.sion was the medicine against Adam"s sin: and Adam was not buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron; for it is written (Josh.
14:15): "The name of Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the greatest in the land of [Vulg.: "among"] the Enacims was laid there."
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 13:33): "It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." Therefore it was fitting that He should die in Jerusalem.
_I answer that,_ According to the author of _De Qq. Vet. et Nov.
Test.,_ qu. lv, "the Saviour did everything in its proper place and season," because, as all things are in His hands, so are all places: and consequently, since Christ suffered at a suitable time, so did He in a suitable place.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ died most appropriately in Jerusalem. First of all, because Jerusalem was G.o.d"s chosen place for the offering of sacrifices to Himself: and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed Christ"s Pa.s.sion, which is a true sacrifice, according to Eph. 5:2: "He hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to G.o.d for an odor of sweetness." Hence Bede says in a Homily (xxiii): "When the Pa.s.sion drew nigh, our Lord willed to draw nigh to the place of the Pa.s.sion"--that is to say, to Jerusalem--whither He came five days before the Pasch; just as, according to the legal precept, the Paschal lamb was led to the place of immolation five days before the Pasch, which is the tenth day of the moon.
Secondly, because the virtue of His Pa.s.sion was to be spread over the whole world, He wished to suffer in the center of the habitable world--that is, in Jerusalem. Accordingly it is written (Ps. 73:12): "But G.o.d is our King before ages: He hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth"--that is, in Jerusalem, which is called "the navel of the earth" [*Cf. Jerome"s comment on Ezech. 5:5].
Thirdly, because it was specially in keeping with His humility: that, as He chose the most shameful manner of death, so likewise it was part of His humility that He did not refuse to suffer in so celebrated a place. Hence Pope Leo says (Serm. I in Epiph.): "He who had taken upon Himself the form of a servant chose Bethlehem for His nativity and Jerusalem for His Pa.s.sion."
Fourthly, He willed to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests dwelt, to show that the wickedness of His slayers arose from the chiefs of the Jewish people. Hence it is written (Acts 4:27): "There a.s.sembled together in this city against Thy holy child Jesus whom Thou hast anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel."
Reply Obj. 2: For three reasons Christ suffered outside the gate, and not in the Temple nor in the city. First of all, that the truth might correspond with the figure. For the calf and the goat which were offered in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of the entire mult.i.tude were burnt outside the camp, as commanded in Lev.
16:27. Hence it is written (Heb. 13:27): "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holies by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate."
Secondly, to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation.
Accordingly the pa.s.sage continues: "Let us go forth therefore to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach."
Thirdly, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Pa.s.sion (Hom. i De Cruce et Latrone): "The Lord was not willing to suffer under a roof, nor in the Jewish Temple, lest the Jews might take away the saving sacrifice, and lest you might think He was offered for that people only. Consequently, it was beyond the city and outside the walls, that you may learn it was a universal sacrifice, an oblation for the whole world, a cleansing for all."
Reply Obj. 3: According to Jerome, in his commentary on Matt. 27:33, "someone explained "the place of Calvary" as being the place where Adam was buried; and that it was so called because the skull of the first man was buried there. A pleasing interpretation indeed, and one suited to catch the ear of the people, but, still, not the true one.
For the spots where the condemned are beheaded are outside the city and beyond the gates, deriving thence the name of Calvary--that is, of the beheaded. Jesus, accordingly, was crucified there, that the standards of martyrdom might be uplifted over what was formerly the place of the condemned. But Adam was buried close by Hebron and Arbe, as we read in the book of Jesus Ben Nave." But Jesus was to be crucified in the common spot of the condemned rather than beside Adam"s sepulchre, to make it manifest that Christ"s cross was the remedy, not only for Adam"s personal sin, but also for the sin of the entire world.
_______________________
ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 11]
Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Be Crucified with Thieves?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been crucified with thieves, because it is written (2 Cor. 6:14): "What partic.i.p.ation hath justice with injustice?" But for our sakes Christ "of G.o.d is made unto us justice" (1 Cor. 1:30); whereas iniquity applies to thieves. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves.
Obj. 2: Further, on Matt. 26:35, "Though I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee," Origen (Tract. x.x.xv in Matth.) observes: "It was not men"s lot to die with Jesus, since He died for all." Again, on Luke 22:33, "I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison and death,"
Ambrose says: "Our Lord"s Pa.s.sion has followers, but not equals." It seems, then, much less fitting for Christ to suffer with thieves.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 27:44) that "the thieves who were crucified with Him reproached Him." But in Luke 22:42 it is stated that one of them who were crucified with Christ cried out to Him: "Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom." It seems, then, that besides the blasphemous thieves there was another man who did not blaspheme Him: and so the Evangelist"s account does not seem to be accurate when it says that Christ was crucified with thieves.
_On the contrary,_ It was foretold by Isaias (53:12): "And He was reputed with the wicked."
_I answer that,_ Christ was crucified between thieves from one intention on the part of the Jews, and from quite another on the part of G.o.d"s ordaining. As to the intention of the Jews, Chrysostom remarks (Hom. lx.x.xvii in Matth.) that they crucified the two thieves, one on either side, "that He might be made to share their guilt. But it did not happen so; because mention is never made of them; whereas His cross is honored everywhere. Kings lay aside their crowns to take up the cross: on their purple robes, on their diadems, on their weapons, on the consecrated table, everywhere the cross shines forth."
As to G.o.d"s ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves, because, as Jerome says on Matt. 27:33: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, so for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty." Secondly, as Pope Leo observes (Serm. iv de Pa.s.sione): "Two thieves were crucified, one on His right hand and one on His left, to set forth by the very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be made in His hour of judgment."
And Augustine on John 7:36: "The very cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment-seat: for the judge being set in the midst, the one who believed was delivered, the other who mocked Him was condemned.
Already He has signified what He shall do to the quick and the dead; some He will set on His right, others on His left hand." Thirdly, according to Hilary (Comm. x.x.xiii in Matth.): "Two thieves are set, one upon His right and one upon His left, to show that all mankind is called to the sacrament of His Pa.s.sion. But because of the cleavage between believers and unbelievers, the mult.i.tude is divided into right and left, those on the right being saved by the justification of faith." Fourthly, because, as Bede says on Mk. 15:27: "The thieves crucified with our Lord denote those who, believing in and confessing Christ, either endure the conflict of martyrdom or keep the inst.i.tutes of stricter observance. But those who do the like for the sake of everlasting glory are denoted by the faith of the thief on the right; while others who do so for the sake of human applause copy the mind and behavior of the one on the left."
Reply Obj. 1: Just as Christ was not obliged to die, but willingly submitted to death so as to vanquish death by His power: so neither deserved He to be cla.s.sed with thieves; but willed to be reputed with the unG.o.dly that He might destroy unG.o.dliness by His power.
Accordingly, Chrysostom says (Hom. lx.x.xiv in Joan.) that "to convert the thief upon the cross, and lead him into paradise, was no less a wonder than to shake the rocks."
Reply Obj. 2: It was not fitting that anyone else should die with Christ from the same cause as Christ: hence Origen continues thus in the same pa.s.sage: "All had been under sin, and all required that another should die for them, not they for others."
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): We can understand Matthew "as putting the plural for the singular" when he said "the thieves reproached Him." Or it may be said, with Jerome, that "at first both blasphemed Him, but afterwards one believed in Him on witnessing the wonders."
_______________________
TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 12]
Whether Christ"s Pa.s.sion Is to Be Attributed to His G.o.dhead?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ"s Pa.s.sion is to be attributed to His G.o.dhead; for it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." But Christ is the Lord of glory in respect of His G.o.dhead. Therefore Christ"s Pa.s.sion is attributed to Him in respect of His G.o.dhead.
Obj. 2: Further, the principle of men"s salvation is the G.o.dhead Itself, according to Ps. 36:39: "But the salvation of the just is from the Lord." Consequently, if Christ"s Pa.s.sion did not appertain to His G.o.dhead, it would seem that it could not produce fruit in us.
Obj. 3: Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for murdering G.o.d Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the punishment.
Now this would not be so if the Pa.s.sion were not attributed to the G.o.dhead. Therefore Christ"s Pa.s.sion should be so attributed.
_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): "The Word is impa.s.sible whose Nature is Divine." But what is impa.s.sible cannot suffer. Consequently, Christ"s Pa.s.sion did not concern His G.o.dhead.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 2, 3, 6), the union of the human nature with the Divine was effected in the Person, in the hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet observing the distinction of natures; so that it is the same Person and hypostasis of the Divine and human natures, while each nature retains that which is proper to it. And therefore, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 4), the Pa.s.sion is to be attributed to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature, which is impa.s.sible, but by reason of the human nature. Hence, in a Synodal Epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes., P.