Therefore the body of Christ should not have been formed from the ma.s.s of the human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter.
Obj. 3: Further, by "one man sin entered into this world," i.e. by Adam, because in him all nations sinned originally, as is clear from Rom. 5:12. But if Christ"s body was derived from Adam, He would have been in Adam originally when he sinned: therefore he would have contracted original sin; which is unbecoming in His purity. Therefore the body of Christ was not formed of matter derived from Adam.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 2:16): "Nowhere doth He"--that is, the Son of G.o.d--"take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold." But the seed of Abraham was derived from Adam. Therefore Christ"s body was formed of matter derived from Adam.
_I answer that,_ Christ a.s.sumed human nature in order to cleanse it of corruption. But human nature did not need to be cleansed save in as far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was descended from Adam. Therefore it was becoming that He should a.s.sume flesh of matter derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be healed by the a.s.sumption.
Reply Obj. 1: The second man, i.e. Christ, is said to be of heaven, not indeed as to the matter from which His body was formed, but either as to the virtue whereby it was formed; or even as to His very G.o.dhead. But as to matter, Christ"s body was earthly, as Adam"s body was.
Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 29, A. 1, ad 2) the mystery of Christ"s Incarnation is miraculous, not as ordained to strengthen faith, but as an article of faith. And therefore in the mystery of the Incarnation we do not seek that which is most miraculous, as in those miracles that are wrought for the confirmation of faith, but what is most becoming to Divine wisdom, and most expedient to the salvation of man, since this is what we seek in all matters of faith.
It may also be said that in the mystery of the Incarnation the miracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception, but rather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth; inasmuch as a virgin conceived and gave birth to G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 15, A. 1, ad 2), Christ"s body was in Adam in respect of a bodily substance--that is to say, that the corporeal matter of Christ"s body was derived from Adam: but it was not there by reason of seminal virtue, because it was not conceived from the seed of man. Thus it did not contract original sin, as others who are descended from Adam by man"s seed.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 2]
Whether Christ Took Flesh of the Seed of David?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed of David. For Matthew, in tracing the genealogy of Christ, brings it down to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ"s father, as shown above (Q. 28, A. 1, ad 1, 2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not descended from David.
Obj. 2: Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex. 6.
Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Luke 1:5, 36. Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Matt. 1, it seems that Christ was not descended from David.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written of Jechonias (Jer. 22:30): "Write this man barren ... for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David." Whereas of Christ it is written (Isa.
9:7): "He shall sit upon the throne of David." Therefore Christ was not of the seed of Jechonias: nor, consequently, of the family of David, since Matthew traces the genealogy from David through Jechonias.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 1:3): "Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh."
_I answer that,_ Christ is said to have been the son especially of two of the patriarchs, Abraham and David, as is clear from Matt. 1:1.
There are many reasons for this. First to these especially was the promise made concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham (Gen.
22:18): "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed": which words the Apostle expounds of Christ (Gal. 3:16): "To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, "And to his seeds" as of many; but as of one, "And to thy seed," which is Christ." And to David it was said (Ps. 131:11): "Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne." Wherefore the Jewish people, receiving Him with kingly honor, said (Matt. 21:9): "Hosanna to the Son of David."
A second reason is because Christ was to be king, prophet, and priest. Now Abraham was a priest; which is clear from the Lord saying unto him (Gen. 15:9): "Take thee [Vulg.: "Me"] a cow of three years old," etc. He was also a prophet, according to Gen. 20:7: "He is a prophet; and he shall pray for thee." Lastly David was both king and prophet.
A third reason is because circ.u.mcision had its beginning in Abraham: while in David G.o.d"s election was most clearly made manifest, according to 1 Kings 13:14: "The Lord hath sought Him a man according to His own heart." And consequently Christ is called in a most special way the Son of both, in order to show that He came for the salvation both of the circ.u.mcised and of the elect among the Gentiles.
Reply Obj. 1: Faustus the Manichean argued thus, in the desire to prove that Christ is not the Son of David, because He was not conceived of Joseph, in whom Matthew"s genealogy terminates.
Augustine answered this argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): "Since the same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary"s husband and that Christ"s mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, what must we believe, but that Mary was not a stranger to the family of David: and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their hearts, although not mingled in the flesh; and that the genealogy is traced down to Joseph rather than to her by reason of the dignity of the husband? So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, which a.s.sert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by s.e.xual intercourse but retaining her virginity." For as Jerome says on Matt. 1:18: "Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman. Hence it was that they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being descended from the same stock."
Reply Obj. 2: Gregory of n.a.z.ianzum answers this objection by saying that it happened by G.o.d"s will, that the royal family was united to the priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest, should be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, who was the first priest according to the Law, married a wife of the tribe of Juda, Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab. It is therefore possible that Elizabeth"s father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. Or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary"s father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron.
Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary"s father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim"s mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David.
Reply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says on Luke 3:25, this prophetical pa.s.sage does not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of Jechonias.
And so Christ is of his seed. Neither is the fact that Christ reigned contrary to prophecy, for He did not reign with worldly honor; since He declared: "My kingdom is not of this world."
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 3]
Whether Christ"s Genealogy Is Suitably Traced by the Evangelists?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ"s genealogy is not suitably traced by the Evangelists. For it is written (Isa. 53:8): "Who shall declare His generation?" Therefore Christ"s genealogy should not have been set down.
Obj. 2: Further, one man cannot possibly have two fathers. But Matthew says that "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary": whereas Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Therefore they contradict one another.
Obj. 3: Further, there seem to be divergencies between them on several points. For Matthew, at the commencement of his book, beginning from Abraham and coming down to Joseph, enumerates forty-two generations. Whereas Luke sets down Christ"s genealogy after His Baptism, and beginning from Christ traces the series of generations back to G.o.d, counting in all seventy-seven generations, the first and last included. It seems therefore that their accounts of Christ"s genealogy do not agree.
Obj. 4: Further, we read (4 Kings 8:24) that Joram begot Ochozias, who was succeeded by his son Joas: who was succeeded by his son Amasius: after whom reigned his son Azarias, called Ozias; who was succeeded by his son Joathan. But Matthew says that Joram begot Ozias. Therefore it seems that his account of Christ"s genealogy is unsuitable, since he omits three kings in the middle thereof.
Obj. 5: Further, all those who are mentioned in Christ"s genealogy had both a father and a mother, and many of them had brothers also.
Now in Christ"s genealogy Matthew mentions only three mothers--namely, Thamar, Ruth, and the wife of Urias. He also mentions the brothers of Judas and Jechonias, and also Phares and Zara. But Luke mentions none of these. Therefore the evangelists seem to have described the genealogy of Christ in an unsuitable manner.
_On the contrary,_ The authority of Scripture suffices.
_I answer that,_ As is written (2 Tim. 3:16), "All Holy Scripture is inspired of G.o.d [Vulg.: "All scripture inspired of G.o.d is profitable"], etc. Now what is done by G.o.d is done in perfect order, according to Rom. 13:1: "Those that are of G.o.d are ordained [Vulg.: "Those that are, are ordained of G.o.d"]." Therefore Christ"s genealogy is set down by the evangelists in a suitable order.
Reply Obj. 1: As Jerome says on Matt. 1, Isaias speaks of the generation of Christ"s G.o.dhead. Whereas Matthew relates the generation of Christ in His humanity; not indeed by explaining the manner of the Incarnation, which is also unspeakable; but by enumerating Christ"s forefathers from whom He was descended according to the flesh.
Reply Obj. 2: Various answers have been made by certain writers to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as Gregory of n.a.z.ianzum, say that the people mentioned by the two evangelists are the same, but under different names, as though they each had two. But this will not stand: because Matthew mentions one of David"s sons--namely, Solomon; whereas Luke mentions another--namely, Nathan, who according to the history of the kings (2 Kings 5:14) were clearly brothers.
Wherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of Christ: while Luke gave the supposit.i.tious genealogy; hence he began: "Being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." For among the Jews there were some who believed that, on account of the crimes of the kings of Juda, Christ would be born of the family of David, not through the kings, but through some other line of private individuals.
Others again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers according to the flesh: whereas Luke gave these according to the spirit, that is, righteous men, who are called (Christ"s) forefathers by likeness of virtue.
But an answer is given in the Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. [*Part i, qu.
lvi; part 2, qu. vi] to the effect that we are not to understand that Joseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli: but that at the time of Christ, Heli and Joseph were differently descended from David. Hence Christ is said to have been supposed to be the son of Joseph, and also to have been the son of Heli as though (the Evangelist) were to say that Christ, from the fact that He was the son of Joseph, could be called the son of Heli and of all those who were descended from David; as the Apostle says (Rom. 9:5): "Of whom" (viz. the Jews) "is Christ according to the flesh."
Augustine again gives three solutions (De Qq. Evang. ii), saying: "There are three motives by one or other of which the evangelist was guided. For either one evangelist mentions Joseph"s father of whom he was begotten; whilst the other gives either his maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers; or one was Joseph"s natural father: the other is father by adoption. Or, according to the Jewish custom, one of those having died without children, a near relation of his married his wife, the son born of the latter union being reckoned as the son of the former": which is a kind of legal adoption, as Augustine himself says (De Consensu Evang. ii, Cf. Retract. ii).
This last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on Matt. 1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), says that it is given by Africa.n.u.s the historian. For these writers say that Mathan and Melchi, at different times, each begot a son of one and the same wife, named Estha. For Mathan, who traced his descent through Solomon, had married her first, and died, leaving one son, whose name was Jacob: and after his death, as the law did not forbid his widow to remarry, Melchi, who traced his descent through Mathan, being of the same tribe though not of the same family as Mathan, married his widow, who bore him a son, called Heli; so that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different fathers. Now one of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying without issue, married the latter"s widow, according to the prescription of the law, of whom he had a son, Joseph, who by nature was his own son, but by law was accounted the son of Heli. Wherefore Matthew says "Jacob begot Joseph": whereas Luke, who was giving the legal genealogy, speaks of no one as begetting.
And although Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) says that the Blessed Virgin Mary was connected with Joseph in as far as Heli was accounted as his father, for he says that she was descended from Melchi: yet must we also believe that she was in some way descended from Solomon through those patriarchs enumerated by Matthew, who is said to have set down Christ"s genealogy according to the flesh; and all the more since Ambrose states that Christ was of the seed of Jechonias.
Reply Obj. 3: According to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii) "Matthew purposed to delineate the royal personality of Christ; Luke the priestly personality: so that in Matthew"s genealogy is signified the a.s.sumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ": inasmuch as by his carnal origin "He a.s.sumed "the likeness of sinful flesh." But in Luke"s genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified," which is effected by Christ"s sacrifice. "For which reason Matthew traces the generations downwards, Luke upwards." For the same reason too "Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose namesake, the prophet, G.o.d expiated his sin." And hence it is also that, because "Matthew wished to signify that Christ had condescended to our mortal nature, he set down the genealogy of Christ at the very outset of his Gospel, beginning with Abraham and descending to Joseph and the birth of Christ Himself. Luke, on the contrary, sets forth Christ"s genealogy not at the outset, but after Christ"s Baptism, and not in the descending but in the ascending order: as though giving prominence to the office of the priest in expiating our sins, to which John bore witness, saying: "Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world." And in the ascending order, he pa.s.ses Abraham and continues up to G.o.d, to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and expiating. With reason too he follows the origin of adoption; because by adoption we become children of G.o.d: whereas by carnal generation the Son of G.o.d became the Son of Man. Moreover he shows sufficiently that he does not say that Joseph was the son of Heli as though begotten by him, but because he was adopted by him, since he says that Adam was the son of G.o.d, inasmuch as he was created by G.o.d."
Again, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life: because of the four parts of the world in which we pa.s.s this mortal life under the rule of Christ. And forty is the product of four multiplied by ten: while ten is the sum of the numbers from one to four. The number ten may also refer to the decalogue; and the number four to the present life; or again to the four Gospels, according to which Christ reigns in us. And thus "Matthew, putting forward the royal personality of Christ, enumerates forty persons not counting Him" (cf. Augustine, De Consensu Evang. ii). But this is to be taken on the supposition that it be the same Jechonias at the end of the second, and at the commencement of the third series of fourteen, as Augustine understands it. According to him this was done in order to signify "that under Jechonias there was a certain defection to strange nations during the Babylonian captivity; which also foreshadowed the fact that Christ would pa.s.s from the Jews to the Gentiles."
On the other hand, Jerome (on Matt. 1:12-15) says that there were two Joachims--that is, Jechonias, father and son: both of whom are mentioned in Christ"s genealogy, so as to make clear the distinction of the generations, which the evangelist divides into three series of fourteen; which amounts in all to forty-two persons. Which number may also be applied to the Holy Church: for it is the product of six, which signifies the labor of the present life, and seven, which signifies the rest of the life to come: for six times seven are forty-two. The number fourteen, which is the sum of ten and four, can also be given the same signification as that given to the number forty, which is the product of the same numbers by multiplication.
But the number used by Luke in Christ"s genealogy signifies the generality of sins. "For the number ten is shown in the ten precepts of the Law to be the number of righteousness. Now, to sin is to go beyond the restriction of the Law. And eleven is the number beyond ten." And seven signifies universality: because "universal time is involved in seven days." Now seven times eleven are seventy-seven: so that this number signifies the generality of sins which are taken away by Christ.
Reply Obj. 4: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:8, 11: "Because Joram allied himself with the family of the most wicked Jezabel, therefore his memory is omitted down to the third generation, lest it should be inserted among the holy predecessors of the Nativity." Hence as Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperf. in Matth. Hom. i, falsely ascribed to Chrysostom] says: "Just as great was the blessing conferred on Jehu, who wrought vengeance on the house of Achab and Jezabel, so also great was the curse on the house of Joram, through the wicked daughter of Achab and Jezabel, so that until the fourth generation his posterity is cut off from the number of kings, according to Ex.
20:5: I shall visit [Vulg.: "Visiting"] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations."
It must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and are mentioned in Christ"s genealogy: but their impiety was not continuous. For, as it is stated in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov.
Test. qu. lx.x.xv: "Solomon through his father"s merits is included in the series of kings; and Roboam ... through the merits of Asa," who was son of his (Roboam"s) son, Abiam. "But the impiety of those three [*i.e. Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias, of whom St. Augustine asks in this question lx.x.xv, why they were omitted by St. Matthew] was continuous."