 Question 58 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 58 of Christ's Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, in four articles. We have now to consider Christ's Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, concerning which there are four points of inquiry. First, whether Christ is seated at the Right Hand of the Father. Second, whether this belongs to Him according to the divine nature. Third, whether it belongs to Him according to His human nature. Fourth, whether it is something proper to Christ. First article, whether it is fitting that Christ should sit at the Right Hand of God the Father. Objection 1, you would seem unfitting that Christ should sit at the Right Hand of God the Father. For right and left are differences of bodily position. But nothing corporeal can be applied to God, since God is a spirit, as we read in John 4.24. Therefore, it seems that Christ does not sit at the Right Hand of the Father. Objection 2 further. If anyone sits at another's Right Hand, then the latter is seated on his left. Consequently, if Christ sits at the Right Hand of the Father, it follows that the Father is seated on the left of the Son, which is unseemly. Objection 3 further. Sitting and standing savor of opposition. But Stephen in Acts 7.55 said, Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the Right Hand of God. Therefore, it seems that Christ does not sit at the Right Hand of the Father. On the contrary, it is written in the last chapter of Mark, chapter 16, verse 19. The Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven and sitteth on the Right Hand of God. I answer that the word sitting may have a twofold meaning, namely abiding, as in Luke 2440. Sit you in the city, and royal or judiciary power, as in Proverbs 20 verse 8. The King that sitteth on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his look. Now in either sense, it belongs to Christ to sit at the Father's Right Hand. First of all, inasmuch as he abides eternally unchangeable in the Father's bliss, which is termed his Right Hand according to Psalm 1511. At thy Right Hand are delights even to the end. Hence Augustine says in On the Creed to the Catechumens 1, Siddeth at the Right Hand of the Father. To sit means to dwell, just as we say of any man, he sat in that country for three years. Believe then that Christ dwells so at the Right Hand of the Father, for he is happy, and the Father's Right Hand is the name for his bliss. Secondly, Christ is said to sit at the Right Hand of the Father, inasmuch as he reigns together with the Father, and has judiciary power from him, just as he who sits at the King's Right Hand helps him in ruling and judging. Hence Augustine says in On the Creed to the Catechumens 2, By the expression Right Hand, understand the power which this man, chosen of God, received, that he might come to judge who before had come to be judged. Reply to Objection 1, As Damascene says in On the True Faith 4, We do not speak of the Father's Right Hand as of a place, for how can a place be designated by his Right Hand who himself is beyond all place? Right and left belong to things definable by limit, but we style as the Father's Right Hand the glory and honour of the Godhead. Reply to Objection 2, The argument holds good if sitting at the Right Hand be taken corporeally. Hence Augustine says, again in On the Creed to the Catechumens 1, If we accept it in a carnal sense that Christ sits at the Father's Right Hand, then the Father will be on the left. But there, that is in eternal bliss, it is all Right Hand since no misery is there. Reply to Objection 3, As Gregory says in a homily on the Ascension, It is the judge's place to sit, while to stand is the place of the combatant or helper, Consequently Stephen in his toil of combat, saw him standing whom he had as his helper. But Mark describes him as seated after the Ascension, because after the glory of his Ascension, he will at the end be seen as judge. Second article, Whether it belongs to Christ as God to sit at the Right Hand of the Father? Objection 1, It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as God to sit at the Right Hand of the Father. For as God, Christ is the Father's Right Hand. But it does not appear to be the same thing to be the Right Hand of anyone and to sit on his Right Hand. Therefore, as God, Christ does not sit at the Right Hand of the Father. Objection 2 further, In the last chapter of Mark, Chapter 16, Verse 19, It is said that the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and siteth on the Right Hand of God. But it was not as God that Christ was taken up to heaven. Therefore, neither does he as God sit at the Right Hand of God. Objection 3 further, Christ as God is the equal of the Father and of the Holy Ghost. Consequently, if Christ sits as God at the Right Hand of the Father, with equal reason, the Holy Ghost sits at the Right Hand of the Father and of the Son, and the Father himself on the Right Hand of the Son, which no one is found to say. On the contrary, Damascene says, in On the True Faith 4, What we style as the Father's Right Hand is the glory and honor of the Godhead, wherein the Son of God existed before ages as God and as consubstantial with the Father. I answer that, as may be gathered from what has been said in Article 1, three things can be understood under the expression Right Hand. First of all, as Damascene takes it, the glory of the Godhead. Secondly, according to Augustine, the beatitude of the Father. Thirdly, according to the same authority, Judiciary Power. Now as we observed in Article 1, sitting denotes either abiding or royal judiciary dignity. Hence to sit on the Right Hand of the Father is nothing else than to share in the glory of the Godhead with the Father and to possess beatitude and judiciary power and that unchangeably and royally. But this belongs to the Son of God. Hence it is manifest that Christ as God sits at the Right Hand of the Father. Yet so that this preposition at, which is a transitive one, implies merely personal distinction and order of origin, but not degree of nature or dignity, for there is no such thing in the Divine Persons as was shown in the first part, Question 42, Articles 3 and 4. Reply to Objection 1. The Son of God is called the Father's Right Hand by appropriation, just as he is called the Power of the Father in 1 Corinthians 124. But Right Hand of the Father, in its three meanings given above, is something common to the three Persons. Reply to Objection 2. Christ as man is exalted to divine honor, and this is signified in the aforesaid sitting. Nevertheless, such honor belongs to him as God, not through any assumption, but through his origin from eternity. Reply to Objection 3. In no way can it be said that the Father is seated at the Right Hand of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, because the Son and the Holy Ghost derive their origin from the Father and not conversely. The Holy Ghost, however, can be said properly to sit at the Right Hand of the Father or of the Son in the aforesaid sense, although by a kind of appropriation it is attributed to the Son to whom equality is appropriated. Thus Augustine says in On Christian Teaching 1 that, In the Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Ghost the connection of unity with equality. Third Article Whether it belongs to Christ as man to sit at the Right Hand of the Father Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to sit at the Right Hand of the Father, because as Damascene says in On the True Faith 4, What we call the Father's Right Hand is the Glory and Honor of the Godhead. But the Glory and Honor of the Godhead do not belong to Christ as man. Consequently, it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the Right Hand of the Father. Objection 2. To sit on the ruler's Right Hand seems to exclude Subjection, because one so sitting seems in a measure to be reigning with him. But Christ as man is subject unto the Father as is said in 1 Corinthians 15-28. Therefore it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the Father's Right Hand. Objection 3 Further On Romans 8.34 Who is at the Right Hand of God? The Gloss adds, That is equal to the Father in that Honor whereby God is the Father, or on the Right Hand of the Father that is in the Mightier gifts of God. Objection 4 And on Hebrews 1, verse 3, Sidoth on the Right Hand of the Majesty on High. The Gloss adds, That is inequality with the Father over all things both in place and dignity. But equality with God does not belong to Christ as man. For in this respect Christ himself says in John 14-28, The Father is greater than I. Objection 5 Consequently it appears unseemly for Christ as man to sit on the Father's Right Hand. On the contrary, Augustine says in On the Creed to the Catechumens 2, By the expression Right Hand, Understand the power which this man chosen of God received, that he might come as Judge who before had come to be judged. I answer that as stated above in Article 2. By the expression Right Hand is understood either the glory of his Godhead or his eternal beatitude or his judicial and royal power. Now this preposition at signifies a kind of approach to the Right Hand, thus denoting something in common and yet with a distinction as already observed. And this can be in three ways. First of all by something common in nature and a distinction in person. And thus Christ as the Son of God sits at the Right Hand of the Father because he has the same nature as the Father. Hence these things belong to the Son essentially just as to the Father. And this is to be in equality with the Father. Secondly, according to the grace of union, which on the contrary implies distinction of nature and unity of person. According to this Christ as man is the Son of God and consequently sits at the Father's Right Hand. Yet so that the expression as does not denote condition of nature but unity of suppositum as explained above in Question 16, Articles 10 and 11. Thirdly, the said approach can be understood according to habitual grace which is more fully in Christ than in all other creatures so much so that human nature in Christ is more blessed than all other creatures and possesses over all other creatures royal and judiciary power. So then, if as denote condition of nature then Christ as God sits at the Father's Right Hand that is inequality with the Father but as man he sits at the Right Hand of the Father that is in the Father's mightier gifts beyond all other creatures. That is to say in greater beatitude and exercising judiciary power. But if as denote unity of person thus again as man he sits at the Father's Right Hand as to equality of honor in as much as with the same honor we venerate the Son with his assumed nature as was said above in Question 25, Article 1. Reply to Objection 1. Christ's humanity according to the conditions of his nature has not the glory or honor of the Godhead which it has nevertheless by reason of the person with whom it is united. Hence Damocene adds in the passage quoted in which that is in the glory of the Godhead. The Son of God existed before ages as God and consubstantial with the Father sits in his conglorified flesh for under one adoration the one hypothesis together with his flesh is adored by every creature. Reply to Objection 2. Christ as man is subject to the Father if as denote the condition of nature in which respect it does not belong to him as man to sit at the Father's Right Hand by reason of their mutual equality. But it does thus belong to him to sit at the right hand of the Father according as is thereby denoted the excellence of beatitude and his judiciary power over every creature. Reply to Objection 3. It does not belong to Christ's human nature to be in equality with the Father but only to the person who assumed it. But it does belong even to the assumed human nature to share in God's mightier gifts insofar as it implies exaltation above other creatures. Fourth Article Whether it is proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father Objection 1. It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father because the Apostle says in Ephesians 2 verses 4 and 6 God hath raised us up together and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places through Christ Jesus. But to be raised up is not proper to Christ. Therefore, for like reason, neither is it proper to him to sit on the right hand of God on high. Objection 2 further, as Augustine says in On the Creed to the Catechumens 1. For Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father is to dwell in his beatitude. But many more share in this. Therefore, it does not appear to be proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father. Objection 3 further, Christ himself says in Apocalypse 321, To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne, as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne. But it is by sitting on his Father's throne that Christ is seated at his right hand. Therefore, others who overcome likewise sit at the Father's right hand. Objection 4 further, the Lord says in Matthew 20 verse 23, To sit on my right or left hand is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father. But no purpose would be served by saying this unless it was prepared for some. Consequently, to sit at the right hand is not proper to Christ. On the contrary, it is written in Hebrews 1 verse 13, To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, that is, in my mightier gifts, or as my equal to the Godhead. As if to answer, to none. But angels are higher than other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to anyone save Christ to sit at the Father's right hand. I answer that, as stated above in article 3, Christ is said to sit at the Father's right hand in as much as he is on equality with the Father in respect of his divine nature. While in respect of his humanity, he excels all creatures in the possession of divine gifts. But each of these belongs exclusively to Christ. Consequently, it belongs to no one else, angel or man, but to Christ alone to sit at the right hand of the Father. Reply to Objection 1, Since Christ is our head, then what was bestowed on Christ is bestowed on us through him. And on this account, since he is already raised up, the Apostle says that God has, so to speak, raised us up together with him. Still, we ourselves are not raised up yet, but are to be raised up, according to Romans 8.11. He who raised up Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies. And after the same manner of speech, the Apostle adds that he has made us to sit together with him in the heavenly places, namely, for the very reason that Christ our head sits there. Reply to Objection 2, Since the right hand is the divine beatitude, then to sit on the right hand does not simply mean to be in beatitude, but to possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power as a property and part of one's nature. This belongs to Christ alone and to no other creature. Yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is placed on God's right hand, hence it is written in Matthew 25 verse 33, He shall set the sheep on his right hand. Reply to Objection 3, By the throne is meant the judiciary power which Christ has from the Father, and in this sense he is said to sit in the Father's throne. But other saints have it from Christ, and in this respect they are said to sit on Christ's throne. According to Matthew 19, 28, You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Reply to Objection 4, As Chrysostom says in a homily on the Gospel of Matthew, That place, to it sitting at the right hand, is closed not only to all men, but likewise to angels. For Paul declares it to be the prerogative of Christ saying, To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand? Our Lord therefore replied not as though some were going to sit there one day, but condescending to the supplication of the questioners. Since more than others they sought this one thing alone to stand nigh to him. Still it can be said that the sons of Zebedee sought for higher excellence in sharing his judiciary power. Hence they did not ask to sit on the Father's right hand or left, but on Christ's. Treaties on the Savior This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Treaties on the Savior by St. Thomas Aquinas translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 59 of Christ's judiciary power in six articles We have now to consider Christ's judiciary power. Under this head there are six points of inquiry. First, whether judiciary power is to be attributed to Christ. Second, whether it belongs to him as man. Third, whether he acquired it by merits. Fourth, whether his judiciary power is universal with regard to all men. Fifth, whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time, we are to expect him in the future general judgment. Sixth, whether his judiciary power extends likewise to the angels. It will be more suitable to consider the execution of the last judgment when we treat of things pertaining to the end of the world. For the present, it will be enough to touch on those points that concern Christ's dignity. First article Whether judiciary power is to be specially attributed to Christ. Objection 1 It would seem that judiciary power is not to be specially attributed to Christ. For judgment of others seems to belong to their Lord, hence it is written in Romans 14.4 Who art thou that judges another man's servant? But it belongs to the entire trinity to be the Lord over creatures. Therefore judiciary power ought not to be attributed specially to Christ. Objection 2 Further It is written in Daniel 7.9 The ancient of day sat. And further on in Daniel 7.10 The judgment sat and the books were opened. But the ancient of days is understood to be the Father, because as Hillary says in On the Trinity too, eternity is in the Father. Consequently judiciary power ought rather to be attributed to the Father rather than Christ. Objection 3 Further It seems to belong to the same person to judge as it does to convince. But it belongs to the Holy Ghost to convince. For our Lord says in John 16.8 And when he is to come, that is the Holy Ghost, he will convince the world of sin and of justice and of judgment. Therefore judiciary power ought to be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to Christ. On the contrary, it is said of Christ in Acts 10 verse 42. It is he who is appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead. I answer that three things are required for passing judgment. First, the power of coercing subjects. Hence it is written in Ecclesiasticus 7.6 Seek not to be made a judge unless to thou have strength enough to extirpate iniquities. The second thing required is upright zeal. So as to pass judgment not out of hatred or malice, but from love of justice according to Proverbs 3.12. For whom the Lord loveth, he chaseneth. And as a Father in the Son, he pleaseth himself. Thirdly, wisdom is needed upon which judgment is based according to Ecclesiasticus 10.1. A wise judge shall judge his people. The first two are conditions for judging. But on the third, the very rule of judgment is based because the standard of judgment is the law of wisdom or truth according to which the judgment is passed. Now because the Son is wisdom begotten, and truth proceeding from the Father, and his perfect image, consequently judiciary power is properly attributed to the Son of God. Accordingly Augustine says in Entrural Legend 31, This is that unchangeable truth which is rightly styled the law of all arts, and the art of the almighty craftsmen. But even as we and all rational souls judge a right of the things beneath us, so does he who alone is truth itself pass judgment on us when we cling to him. But the Father judges him not, for he is the truth no less than himself. Consequently whatever the Father judges, he judges through it. Further on he concludes by saying, Therefore the Father judges no man but has given all judgment to the Son. Reply to Objection 1. This argument proves that judiciary power is common to the entire Trinity, which is quite true. Still by special appropriation such power is attributed to the Son as stated above. Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says in On the Trinity 6, Eternity is attributed to the Father because he is the principle which is implied in the idea of eternity, and in the same place Augustine says that the Son is the art of the Father. So then judiciary authority is attributed to the Father in as much as he is the principle of the Son, but the very rule of judgment is attributed to the Son who is the art and wisdom of the Father, so that as the Father does all things through the Son, in as much as the Son is his art, so he judges all things through the Son in as much as the Son is his wisdom and truth. And this is implied by Daniel when he says in the first passage that the ancient of days sat, and when he subsequently adds that the Son of Man came even to the ancient of days who gave him power and glory and a kingdom. And thereby we are given to understand that the authority for judging lies with the Father from whom the Son received the power to judge. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John, Christ said that the Holy Ghost shall convince the world of sin as if to say, He shall pour out charity upon your hearts. For thus when fear is driven away, you shall have freedom for convincing. Consequently then, judgment is attributed to the Holy Ghost, not as regards the rule of judgment, but as regards man's desire to judge others a right. Second article. Whether Judiciary power belongs to Christ as a man? Objection 1. He would seem that Judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man. For Augustine says in On True Religion 31, that judgment is attributed to the Son in as much as he is the law of the First Truth. But this is Christ's attribute as God. Consequently Judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man, but as God. Objection 2 further. It belongs to Judiciary power to reward the good, just as to punish the wicked. But eternal beatitude, which is the reward of good works, is bestowed by God alone. Thus Augustine says in his commentary on John that the soul is made blessed by participation of God and not by participation of a holy soul. Therefore it seems that Judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man, but as God. Objection 3 further. It belongs to Christ's Judiciary power to judge secrets of hearts, according to 1 Corinthians 4-5. Judge not before the time until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. But this belongs exclusively to the Divine power, according to Jeremiah 17 verses 9 and 10. The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable, who can know it. I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reigns, who give to everyone according to his way. Therefore Judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man, but as God. On the contrary it is said in John 5 verse 27. He hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man. I answer that Chrysostom in a homily on the Gospel of John seems to think that Judiciary power belongs to Christ not as man, but only as God. Accordingly he thus explains the passage just quoted from John. He gave him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man. Wonder not at this. For he received Judiciary power not because he is man, but because he is the Son of the ineffable God, therefore he is judge. But since the expressions used were greater than those appearing to man, he said in explanation. Wonder not at this, because he is the Son of man, for he is likewise the Son of God. And he proves this by the effect of the resurrection, wherefore he adds. Because the hour cometh when the dead in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. But it must be observed that although the primary authority of judging rests with God, nevertheless the power to judge is committed to man with regard to those subject to their jurisdiction. Hence it is written in Deuteronomy 1 verse 16, judge that which is just. And further on in verse 17, because it is the judgment of God. That is to say, it is by his authority that you judge. Now it was said before in question 8, articles 1 and 4, that Christ, even in his human nature, is head of the entire church, and that God has put all things under his feet. Consequently, it belongs to him even according to his human nature to exercise judiciary power. On this account it seems that the authority of Scripture quoted above must be interpreted thus. He gave him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man. Not on account of the condition of his nature, for thus all men would have this kind of power, as Chrysostom objects. But because this belongs to the grace of the head, which Christ received in his human nature. Now judiciary power belongs to Christ in this way according to his human nature on three accounts. First, because of his likeness and kinship with men. For as God works through intermediary causes as being closer to the effects. So he judges men through the man Christ, that his judgment may be sweeter to men. Hence the apostle says in Hebrews 4 verse 15, For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of his grace. Secondly, because at the last judgment, as Augustine says in his commentary on John, there will be a resurrection of dead bodies, which God will raise up through the Son of man, just as by the same Christ he raises souls in as much as he is the Son of God. Thirdly, because as Augustine observes, it was but right that those who were to be judged should see their judge, but those to be judged were the good and the bad. It follows that the form of a servant should be shown in the judgment to both good and wicked, while the form of God should be kept for the good alone. Reply to Objection 1. Judgment belongs to truth as its standard, while it belongs to the man imbued with truth, according as he is as it were, one with truth, as a kind of law and living justice. Confer Aristotle Ethics 5. Hence Augustine quotes the saying of 1 Corinthians 2.15, The Spirit will man judges all things. But beyond all creatures, Christ's soul was more closely united with truth and more full of truth, according to John 1 verse 14. We saw him full of grace and truth. And according to this, it belongs principally to the soul of Christ to judge all things. Reply to Objection 2. It belongs to God alone to bestow beatitude upon souls by a participation with himself. But it is Christ's prerogative to bring them to such beatitude, inasmuch as he is their head and the author of their salvation, according to Hebrews 2.10, who had brought many children into glory to perfect the author of their salvation by his passion. Reply to Objection 3. To know and judge the secrets of hearts of itself belongs to God alone, but from the overflow of the Godhead into Christ's soul, it belongs to him also to know and to judge the secrets of hearts, as we stated above in Question 10, Article 2, when dealing with the knowledge of Christ. Hence it is written in Romans 2.16, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of man by Jesus Christ. 3rd Article Whether Christ acquired his judiciary power by his merits Objection 1. It would seem that Christ did not acquire his judiciary power by his merits. For judiciary power flows from the royal dignity, according to Proverbs 20 verse 8. The king that sitteth on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his look. But it was without merits that Christ acquired royal power, for it is his due, as God's only begotten Son. Thus it is written in Luke 1 verse 32. The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. Therefore Christ did not obtain judiciary power by his merits. Objection 2 further, as stated above in Article 2. Judiciary power is Christ's due in as much as he is our head. But the grace of headship does not belong to Christ by reason of merit, but follows from the personal union of the divine and human natures, according to John verses 14 and 16. We saw his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and of his fullness we have all received. And this pertains to the notion of headship. Consequently it seems that Christ did not have judiciary power from merits. Objection 3 further, the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 2.15, The spiritual man judgeeth all things. But a man becomes spiritual through grace, which is not from merits. Otherwise it is no more grace as is said in Romans 11 verse 6. Therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs neither to Christ nor to others from any merits, but from grace alone. On the contrary, it is written in Job 36 verse 17, Thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked. Cause and judgment Thou shalt recover. And Augustine says in a homily, The judge shall sit, who stood before a judge. He shall condemn the truly wicked, who himself was falsely reputed wicked. I answer that there is nothing to hinder one and the same thing, from being due to some one from various causes, as the glory of the body in rising was due to Christ not only as befitting his Godhead and his soul's glory, but likewise from the merit of the lowliness of his passion, according to Augustine in his commentary on the Gospel. And in the same way it must be said that judiciary power belongs to the man Christ on account of both his divine personality and the dignity of his headship, and the fullness of his habitual grace. And yet he obtained it from merit so that in accordance with divine justice he should be judge who fought for God's justice and conquered and was unjustly condemned. Hence he himself says in Apocalypse 321, I have overcome and am set down in my Father's throne. Now judiciary power is understood by throne according to Psalm 9 verse 5. Thou hast sat on the throne who judged justice. Reply to Objection 1. This argument holds good of judiciary power according as it is due to Christ by reason of the union with the word of God. Reply to Objection 2. This argument is based on the ground of his grace as head. Reply to Objection 3. This argument holds good in regard to habitual grace which perfects Christ's soul. But although judiciary power be Christ's do in these ways, it is not hindered from being his do from merit. Fourth article. Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ with respect to all human affairs. Objection 1. It would seem that judiciary power concerning all human affairs does not belong to Christ. For as we read in Luke 12 verses 13 and 14, when one of the crowd said to Christ, Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. He said to him, Man, who hath appointed me judge or divider over you. Consequently, he does not exercise judgment over all human affairs. Objection 2 further. No one exercises judgment except over his own subjects. But according to Hebrews 2 verse 8, We see not as yet all things subject to Christ. Therefore, it seems that Christ has not judgment over all human affairs. Objection 3. Further, Augustine says in On the City of God 20, that it is part of divine judgment for the good to be afflicted sometimes in this world, and sometimes to prosper, and in like manner the wicked. But the same was the case also before the incarnation. Consequently, not all God's judgments regarding human affairs are included in Christ's judiciary power. On the contrary, it is said in John 5 verse 22, The Father hath given all judgment to the Son. I answer that. If we speak of Christ according to His divine nature, it is evident that every judgment of the Father belongs to the Son, for as the Father does all things through His Word, so He judges all things through His Word. But if we speak of Christ in His human nature, thus again is it evident that all things are subject to His judgment? This is made clear if we consider, first of all, the relationship subsisting between Christ's soul and the Word of God. For if the spiritual man judges all things, as is said in 1 Corinthians 215, in as much as his soul clings to the Word of God, how much more Christ's soul, which is filled with the truth of the Word of God, passes judgment upon all things. Secondly, the same appears from the merit of His death, because, according to Romans 14.9, to this end Christ died and rose again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living, and therefore He has judgment over all men. And on this account the apostle adds in Romans 14 verse 10, We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. And in Daniel 7 verse 14 it is written that He gave Him power and glory and a kingdom, and all people, tribes and tongues shall serve Him. Thirdly, the same thing is evident from comparison of human affairs with the end of human salvation. For to whomesoever the substance is entrusted, the accessory is likewise committed. Now all human affairs are ordered for the end of beatitude, which is everlasting salvation to which men are admitted, or from which they are excluded by Christ's judgment, as is evident from Matthew 25 verses 31 through 40. Consequently, it is manifest that all human affairs are included in Christ's judiciary power. Reply to Objection 1, as was said above in Article 3, First Objection. Judiciary power goes with royal dignity. Now Christ, although established king by God, did not wish while living on earth to govern temporarily an earthly kingdom. Consequently he said in John 18 verse 36, My kingdom is not of this world. In like fashion he did not wish to exercise judiciary power over temporal concerns, since he came to raise men to divine things. Hence Ambrose observes on this passage in Luke. It is well that he who came down with a divine purpose should hold himself aloof from temporal concerns. Nor does he deign to be a judge of quarrels and an arbiter of property, since he is judge of the quick and the dead and the arbitrator of merits. Reply to Objection 2, All things are subject to Christ in respect of that power which he received from the Father over all things according to Matthew 28 verse 18. All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. But as to the exercise of this power, all things are not yet subject to him. This will come to pass in the future when he shall fulfill his will regarding all things by saving some and punishing others. Reply to Objection 3, Judgments of this kind were exercised by Christ before his incarnation in as much as he is the Word of God and the soul united with him personally became a partaker of this power by the incarnation. Fifth article Whether after the judgment that takes place in the present time, there remains yet another general judgment. Objection 1 It would seem that after the judgment that takes place in the present time, there does not remain another general judgment. For a judgment serves no purpose after the final allotment of rewards and punishments. But rewards and punishments are allotted in this present time for our Lord said to the thief on the cross in Luke 23 verse 43, This day thou shalt be with me in paradise. And in Luke 16 verse 22 it is said that the rich man died and was buried in hell. Therefore it is useless to look forward to a final judgment. Objection 2 further According to the Septuagint version of Nahum 1 verse 9, God shall not judge the same thing a second time. But in the present time God judges both temporal and spiritual matters. Therefore it does not seem that another final judgment is to be expected. Objection 3 further Reward and punishment correspond with merit and demerit. But merit and demerit bear relation to the body only in so far as it is instrument of the soul. Therefore reward or punishment is not due to the body save as the soul's instrument. Therefore no other judgment is called for at the end of the world to requite man with reward or punishment in the body besides that judgment in which souls are now punished or rewarded. On the contrary, it is said in John 12 verse 48. The word that I have spoken the same shall judge you in the last day. Therefore there will be a judgment at the last day besides that which takes place in the present time. I answer that judgment cannot be passed perfectly upon any changeable subject before its consummation. Just as judgment cannot be given perfectly regarding the quality of any action before its completion in itself and in its results. Because many actions appear to be profitable, which in their effects prove to be hurtful. And in the same way perfect judgment cannot be passed upon any man before the close of his life since he can be changed in many respects from good to evil or conversely from good to better or from evil to worse. Hence the apostle says in Hebrews 9 verse 27. It is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment. But it must be observed that although man's temporal life in itself ends with death still it continues dependent in a measure on what comes after it in the future. In one way as it still lives on in men's memories in which sometimes contrary to the truth good or evil reputations linger on. In another way in a man's children who are so to speak something of their parent according to Ecclesiastic is 30 verse 4. His father is dead and he is as if he were not dead for he hath left one behind him that is like himself. And yet many good men have wicked sons and conversely. Thirdly as to the result of his actions just as from the deceit of Arius and other false leaders unbelief continues to flourish down to the close of the world. And even until then faith will continue to derive its progress from the preaching of the apostles. In a fourth way as to the body which is sometimes buried with honor and sometimes left unburied and finally falls to dust utterly. In a fifth way as to the things upon which a man's heart is set such as temporal concerns for example some of which quickly lapse while others endure longer. Now all these things are submitted to the verdict of the divine judgment and consequently a perfect and public judgment cannot be made of all these things during the course of this present time. Wherefore there must be a final judgment at the last day in which everything concerning every man in every respect shall be perfectly and publicly judged. Reply to Objection 1. Some men have held the opinion that the souls of the saints shall not be rewarded in heaven nor the souls of the lost punished in hell until the judgment day. That this is false appears from the testimony of the apostle in 2 Corinthians 5 verse 8 where he says, We are confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body and to be present with the Lord. That is not to walk by faith but by sight as appears from the context. But this is to see God in his essence wherein consists eternal life as is clear from John 17 verse 3. Hence it is manifest that the souls separated from bodies are in eternal life. Consequently it must be maintained that after death man enters into an unchangeable state as to all that concerns the soul and therefore there is no need for postponing judgment as to the reward of the soul. But since there are some other things pertaining to a man which go on through the whole course of time and which are not foreign to the divine judgment all these things must be brought to judgment at the end of time. For although in regard to such things a man neither merits nor demerits still in a measure they accompany his reward or punishment. Consequently all these things must be weighed in the final judgment. Reply to objection 2. God shall not judge twice the same thing that is in the same respect but it is not unseemly for God to judge twice according to different respects. Reply to objection 3. Although the reward or punishment of the body depends upon the reward or punishment of the soul nevertheless since the soul is changeable only accidentally on account of the body once it is separated from the body it enters into an unchangeable condition and receives its judgment. But the body remains subject to change down to the close of time and therefore it must receive its reward or punishment then in the last judgment. 6. Article Whether Christ's Judiciary Power Extends to the Angels Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's Judiciary Power does not extend to the angels because the good and wicked angels alike were judged in the beginning of the world when some fell through sin while others were confirmed in bliss. But those already judged have no need of being judged again. Therefore Christ's Judiciary Power does not extend to the angels. Objection 2. The same person cannot be both judged and judged but the angels will come to judge with Christ according to Matthew 25 verse 31 when the Son of Man shall come in His Majesty and all the angels with Him. Therefore it seems that the angels will not be judged by Christ. Objection 3. The angels are higher than other creatures. If Christ then be judged not only of men but likewise of angels, then for the same reason he will be judged of all creatures which seems to be false since this belongs to God's providence. And so it is written in Job 34 verse 13. What other hath he appointed over the earth or whom hath he set over the world which he made? Therefore Christ is not the judge of the angels. On the contrary the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 6 verse 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels but the saints judge only by Christ's authority. Therefore much more does Christ possess judiciary power over the angels. I answer that the angels are subjects of Christ's judiciary power not only with regard to his divine nature as he is the word of God but also with regard to his human nature. And this is evident from three considerations. First of all from the closeness of his assumed nature to God because according to Hebrews 2 verse 16 For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels but of the seed of Abraham he takeeth hold. Consequently Christ's soul is more filled with the truth of the word of God than any angel for which reason he also enlightens the angels as Dionysius says in On the Celestial Hierarchy 7. And so he has power to judge them. Secondly because by the lowliness of his passion human nature and Christ merited to be exalted above the angels so that as is said in Philippians 2.10 In the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those that are in heaven on earth and under the earth. And therefore Christ has judiciary power even over the good and wicked angels. In token whereof it is said in the Apocalypse 7 verse 11 that all the angels stood round about the throne. Thirdly on account of what they do for men of whom Christ is the head in a special manner. Hence it is written in Hebrews 1 verse 14 They are all ministering spirits sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation but they are submitted to Christ's judgment first as regards the dispensing of those things which are done through them which dispensing is likewise done by the man Christ to whom the angels ministered as related in Matthew 4.11 and from the devils that be sought that they may be sent into the swine according to Matthew 8 verse 31. Secondly as to other accidental rewards of the good angels such as the joy which they have at the salvation of men according to Luke 15.10 There shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance and furthermore as to the accidental punishments of the devils wherewith they are either tormented here or are shut up in hell as this also belongs to the man Christ. Hence it is written in Mark 1 verse 24 that the devil cried out what have we to do with the Jesus of Nazareth art thou come to destroy us? Thirdly as to the essential reward of the good angels which is everlasting bliss and as to the essential punishment of the wicked angels which is everlasting damnation. But this was done by Christ from the beginning of the world in as much as he is the word of God. Reply to Objection 1 This argument considers judgment as to the essential reward and chief punishment. Reply to Objection 2 As Augustine says in Antru Religion 31 Although the spiritual man judges all things still he is judged by truth itself. Consequently although the angels judge as being spiritual creatures still they are judged by Christ in as much as he is the truth. Reply to Objection 3 Christ judges not only the angels but also the administration of all creatures for if as Augustine says in On Eternity 3 the lower things are ruled by God through the higher in a certain order it must be said that all things are ruled by Christ's soul which is above every creature. Hence the apostle says in Hebrews 2.5 For God hath not subjected unto angels the world to come subject namely to Christ of whom we speak nor does it follow that God set another over the earth since one and the same person is God and man our Lord Jesus Christ. Let what has been said of the mystery of his incarnation suffice for the present. End of question 59 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC End of Summa Theologica Terziapars The Savior His Incarnation and his Salvific Acts by St. Thomas Aquinas