|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
man's salvation. Hence it is written (I Peter 2:21): "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps." Thirdly, because Christ by his Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (ST III.48.1; ST III.49.1,5). Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to I Corinthians 6.20: "You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body." Fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (I Corinthians 15.57) ''Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We find here a theological statement of some of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian tradition: Christ died for all; his death is the most suitable way for our salvation to have occurred; his death restores our dignity; it ought to evoke our gratitude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As such, it is foreign to the Advaita tradition, devoid of obvious parallels or evident starting points for comparison. Even Mimamsa's theology of sacrifice is not of much help in providing analogues for the soteriological interpretation of the Passion. One may be tempted then to consider leaving it aside as unsuitable for comparison, or to use it to block further comparisons, because it is both central to the Christian faith and positively "incomparable." One can build a wall around it, as it were, and protect it from other texts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A rereading of the Summa Theologiae after Advaita would be in vain were it merely to undercut a Christian belief as important as a central recognition of the Passion of Christ, or were everything in the Summa to be taken into account but one or two such passages. But these outcomes are unnecessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In itself, the passage raises no direct, immediate conflict with Advaita; if immediate points of similarity are missing, so too immediate points of contradiction. As examples of theologi- |
|
|
|
|
|