42. Christ's Assumption of Bodily Defects and Natural Necessity

Summary

This lecture explores Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of why and how Christ assumed bodily defects (death, hunger, thirst, pain) despite the perfection of his soul. Berquist examines the three reasons for this assumption (satisfaction for sin, proof of true humanity, and example of patience), the distinction between contracting and assuming defects, and the philosophical distinction between natural necessity and coercive necessity that allows Christ to be subject to human infirmities without loss of freedom.

Listen to Lecture

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Fittingness of Christ Assuming Bodily Defects #

Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, Q. 14-15) divides the perfections and defects Christ assumed in human nature. The defects of the body are addressed in Q. 14 with four articles:

Whether the Son of God ought to take on bodily defects
Whether He took on the necessity of being subject to these defects
Whether He contracted these defects
Whether He took on all such defects

Berquist notes that Q. 15 contains ten articles on defects of the soul, while Q. 14 has only four on bodily defects, highlighting the greater theological significance of the soul’s perfection despite assuming certain defects.

Three Reasons for Assuming Bodily Defects #

First Reason: Satisfaction for Sin

Christ takes on the punishments consequent to sin (death, hunger, thirst) to satisfy for humanity’s transgression
Defects like death are penalties brought into the world through original sin (Romans 5:12)
Satisfaction requires both matter (the punishments undergone) and form (the charity and virtue of the soul from which satisfaction proceeds)
The soul’s perfection is necessary for the suffering to be efficacious

Second Reason: Proof of True Humanity and Instruction in Faith

Without bodily defects, Christ would appear to have only fantastic or imaginary flesh, not true human nature
Humans have no experience of Adam before sin, so true human nature is known only as subject to bodily defects
This addresses the Docetic heresy (Manicheans) that denied Christ’s true flesh
Thomas cites Philippians 2: Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant… being made in the likeness of men”
The wounds of the risen Christ became instrumental in faith (John 20)

Third Reason: Example of Patience and Virtue

Christ demonstrates patient endurance of bodily suffering and human defects
Hebrews 12:3 shows Christ enduring contradiction from sinners so believers might not grow weary
This exemplifies particular virtues: humility, obedience, patience, and charity
The order of these reasons is significant: satisfaction is primary and most necessary; the second and third serve as aids to faith and virtue

The Soul’s Perfection vs. the Body’s Defects #

A key objection: If Christ’s soul possessed perfect beatitude (the beatific vision), should not this glory overflow into the body, making it incorruptible and free from defects (following Augustine’s principle)?

Thomas’s Response: According to natural relation, the glory of the soul should flow into the body. However, this natural relation was subject to Christ’s divine will, which prevented the overflow of beatitude into the body. This allowed:

The beatitude to remain in the soul alone (proper to the one enjoying God)
The body to undergo what is proper to human nature (suffering, infirmity, death)
Damascene confirms it pleased the divine will to permit the flesh to suffer what is proper to it

Berquist illustrates this with the Transfiguration, where Christ temporarily allowed the glory of the soul to manifest in the body, causing the disciples to fear being killed by its brightness.

The Two-Fold Necessity (Article 2) #

Thomas distinguishes between types of necessity following Aristotelian principle:

Necessity of Coercion (coactio)

Imposed externally, contrary to both nature and will
Flows from an extrinsic agent
Absent in Christ: His divine will and human deliberative will accepted the defects voluntarily
Christ’s natural will fled from death (“Let this cup pass from me”), but his deliberative will accepted it (“Not my will, but thine be done”)

Natural Necessity

Follows from intrinsic principles: form, matter, nature
Example: Fire necessarily heats due to its form; a body composed of contraries must necessarily dissolve
Christ’s mortal flesh, composed of body and soul united in the manner of human nature, was naturally subject to dissolution and death
This necessity was caused by the principles of human flesh itself, not by coercion

Application to Christ:

With respect to the divine will and deliberate human will: No necessity of defects (they were freely accepted)
With respect to natural bodily principles: Necessity of death, hunger, thirst (proper to mortal flesh)
With respect to external coercion: The nailing and scourging had natural necessity to harm the body, but no coercive necessity over the soul

Key Arguments #

For the Fittingness of Bodily Defects #

The Satisfaction Argument

Punishment follows guilt (original or actual sin)
Sin brought death into the world
Christ, having no guilt, was not bound to suffer by necessity of guilt
Yet He voluntarily assumed the penalties to satisfy for humanity
This satisfaction is efficacious only through the charity and virtue of His soul

The Coercion vs. Nature Distinction

The objection claims the soul’s power over the body should prevent defects
Thomas responds: Nothing prevents something from being powerful regarding one effect (preserving life) while naturally subject to another effect (the nail piercing the flesh according to natural bodily principles)
Christ’s soul had power absolutely, but not power to prevent what naturally follows from bodily composition

Against Simple Coercion #

Damascene: “Nothing coerced in Christ should be considered; all was voluntary”
Christ said: “He was offered because he wished” (Isaiah 53)
Yet the will is not opposed to natural necessity—only to coercive necessity

Important Definitions #

Satisfaction (satisfactio)

One person satisfying the debt of another’s sin by undergoing the punishment due to that sin
Requires both matter (the penalties undergone) and form (charity proceeding from the soul)
Efficacy depends entirely on the virtue and love from which suffering proceeds

Contraction vs. Assumption

Contraction: Drawing defects necessarily from one’s origin due to sin; all humans contract original sin’s consequences
Assumption: Voluntarily taking on defects without the debt of sin; Christ assumed defects by divine will for redemptive purposes
Christ’s flesh was conceived without original sin, so He did not contract its consequences; He assumed them freely

Natural Necessity vs. Coercive Necessity

Natural: Following from intrinsic principles (nature, form, matter); compatible with freedom and will
Coercive: Imposed externally against nature and will; contrary to freedom

Remote vs. Proximate Cause of Death

Remote cause: The composition of body from contraries (matter and form) making dissolution natural
Proximate cause: Original sin, which removed the gift of immortality
Christ, without sin, was not bound by the proximate cause but was subject to the remote cause

Examples & Illustrations #

The Overflow of Glory (Augustine) #

Augustine teaches that the soul’s perfect beatitude naturally flows over into the body, conferring incorruption and health. Yet in Christ, the divine will prevented this overflow, keeping the body mortal and capable of suffering. This is no imperfection in Christ but a deliberate choice for redemptive purposes.

The Transfiguration #

Christ temporarily allowed the glory of His soul to manifest in His body, causing such brightness that the disciples feared being killed. This illustrates that the glory was always present in the soul but normally restrained from manifesting in the body.

Defects of Body vs. Soul #

Thomas examines defects of the body (death, hunger, thirst, pain) common to all humanity, but the defects of the soul (ignorance, proneness to evil, fear) are incompatible with Christ’s perfect knowledge and grace. Thus He did not assume the latter.

The Two Wills in Gethsemane #

Natural will: Flees from death (“Let this cup pass from me”)
Deliberative will: Accepts the Father’s will (“Not my will, but thine be done”) This illustrates the compatibility of natural aversion with voluntary acceptance.

Questions Addressed #

Q1: Should the Son of God take on bodily defects? #

Answer: Yes, for three reasons:

To satisfy for sin by undergoing the penalties of sin
To prove the truth of His humanity and instruct faith
To provide an example of patience and virtue

Q2: Was Christ necessarily subject to these defects? #

Answer: Yes and no:

Natural necessity: Yes, due to the principles of mortal human flesh (composition of matter and form)
Coercive necessity: No; both His divine will and deliberate human will freely accepted these defects
His natural will aversive to death did not negate the voluntary acceptance by his higher will

Q3: Did Christ contract these defects? #

Answer: No. Contraction implies drawing defects from the debt of sin. Christ assumed them voluntarily without the debt. His flesh, conceived without original sin, was not bound by sin’s consequences, though He freely assumed the natural human condition.

Q4: Did Christ assume all bodily defects? #

Answer: Only those common to all humanity from original sin. The lecture identifies this addresses Article 4 but does not fully develop it here.