FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 1]

Whether It Is Befitting That Christ Should Be Predestinated?

Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be

predestinated. For the term of anyone's predestination seems to be

the adoption of sons, according to Eph. 1:5: "Who hath predestinated

us unto the adoption of children." But it is not befitting to Christ

to be an adopted Son, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Therefore it is

not fitting that Christ be predestinated.

Obj. 2: Further, we may consider two things in Christ: His human

nature and His person. But it cannot be said that Christ is

predestinated by reason of His human nature; for this proposition is

false--"The human nature is Son of God." In like manner neither by

reason of the person; for this person is the Son of God, not by

grace, but by nature: whereas predestination regards what is of

grace, as stated in the First Part, Q. 23, AA. 2, 5. Therefore Christ

was not predestinated to be the Son of God.

Obj. 3: Further, just as that which has been made was not always, so

also that which was predestinated; since predestination implies a

certain antecedence. But, because Christ was always God and the Son

of God, it cannot be said that that Man was "made the Son of God."

Therefore, for a like reason, we ought not to say that Christ was

"predestinated the Son of God."

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says, speaking of Christ (Rom. 1:4):

"Who was predestinated the Son of God in power."

_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been said in the First

Part (Q. 23, AA. 1, 2), predestination, in its proper sense, is a

certain Divine preordination from eternity of those things which are

to be done in time by the grace of God. Now, that man is God, and

that God is man, is something done in time by God through the grace

of union. Nor can it be said that God has not from eternity

pre-ordained to do this in time: since it would follow that something

would come anew into the Divine Mind. And we must needs admit that

the union itself of natures in the Person of Christ falls under the

eternal predestination of God. For this reason do we say that Christ

was predestinated.

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle there speaks of that predestination by

which we are predestinated to be adopted sons. And just as Christ in

a singular manner above all others is the natural Son of God, so in a

singular manner is He predestinated.

Reply Obj. 2: As a gloss [*From St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. xv]

says on Rom. 1:4, some understood that predestination to refer to the

nature and not to the Person--that is to say, that on human nature

was bestowed the grace of being united to the Son of God in unity of

Person.

But in that case the phrase of the Apostle would be improper, for two

reasons. First, for a general reason: for we do not speak of a

person's nature, but of his person, as being predestinated: because

to be predestinated is to be directed towards salvation, which

belongs to a suppositum acting for the end of beatitude. Secondly,

for a special reason. Because to be Son of God is not befitting to

human nature; for this proposition is false: "The human nature is the

Son of God": unless one were to force from it such an exposition as:

"Who was predestinated the Son of God in power"--that is, "It was

predestinated that the Human nature should be united to the Son of

God in the Person."

Hence we must attribute predestination to the Person of Christ: not,

indeed, in Himself or as subsisting in the Divine Nature, but as

subsisting in the human nature. Wherefore the Apostle, after saying,

"Who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh,"

added, "Who was predestinated the Son of God in power": so as to give

us to understand that in respect of His being of the seed of David

according to the flesh, He was predestinated the Son of God in power.

For although it is natural to that Person, considered in Himself, to

be the Son of God in power, yet this is not natural to Him,

considered in the human nature, in respect of which this befits Him

according to the grace of union.

Reply Obj. 3: Origen commenting on Rom. 1:4 says that the true

reading of this passage of the Apostle is: "Who was destined to be

the Son of God in power"; so that no antecedence is implied. And so

there would be no difficulty. Others refer the antecedence implied in

the participle "predestinated," not to the fact of being the Son of

God, but to the manifestation thereof, according to the customary way

of speaking in Holy Scripture, by which things are said to take place

when they are made known; so that the sense would be--"Christ was

predestinated to be made known as the Son of God." But this is an

improper signification of predestination. For a person is properly

said to be predestinated by reason of his being directed to the end

of beatitude: but the beatitude of Christ does not depend on our

knowledge thereof.

It is therefore better to say that the antecedence implied in the

participle "predestinated" is to be referred to the Person not in

Himself, but by reason of the human nature: since, although that

Person was the Son of God from eternity, it was not always true that

one subsisting in human nature was the Son of God. Hence Augustine

says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): "Jesus was predestinated, so that He

Who according to the flesh was to be the son of David, should be

nevertheless Son of God in power."

Moreover, it must be observed that, although the participle

"predestinated," just as this participle "made," implies antecedence,

yet there is a difference. For "to be made" belongs to the thing in

itself: whereas "to be predestinated" belongs to someone as being in

the apprehension of one who pre-ordains. Now that which is the

subject of a form or nature in reality, can be apprehended either as

under that form or absolutely. And since it cannot be said absolutely

of the Person of Christ that He began to be the Son of God, yet this

is becoming to Him as understood or apprehended to exist in human

nature, because at one time it began to be true that one existing in

human nature was the Son of God; therefore this proposition--"Christ

was predestinated the Son of God"--is truer than this--"Christ was

made the Son of God."

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 173 / 654 题