13:1: "Those that are of God are
ordained
[Vulg.
Summa Theologica
Yet it would
have been more excellent if she had perceived the angel himself in his
substance by her intellectual vision. But it was incompatible with her
state of wayfarer that she should see an angel in his essence.
Reply to Objection 2: The imagination is indeed a higher power than the
exterior sense: but because the senses are the principle of human
knowledge, the greatest certainty is in them, for the principles of
knowledge must needs always be most certain. Consequently Joseph, to
whom the angel appeared in his sleep, did not have so excellent a
vision as the Blessed Virgin.
Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 1:11: "We are disturbed,
and lose our presence of mind, when we are confronted by the presence
of a superior power. " And this happens not only in bodily, but also in
imaginary vision. Wherefore it is written (Gn. 15:12) that "when the
sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and darksome
horror seized upon him. " But by being thus disturbed man is not harmed
to such an extent that therefore he ought to forego the vision of an
angel. First because from the very fact that man is raised above
himself, in which matter his dignity is concerned, his inferior powers
are weakened; and from this results the aforesaid disturbance: thus,
also, when the natural heat is drawn within a body, the exterior parts
tremble. Secondly, because, as Origen says (Hom. iv in Luc. ): "The
angel who appeared, knowing hers was a human nature, first sought to
remedy the disturbance of mind to which a man is subject. " Wherefore
both to Zachary and to Mary, as soon as they were disturbed, he said:
"Fear not. " For this reason, as we read in the life of Anthony, "it is
difficult to discern good from evil spirits. For if joy succeed fear,
we should know that the help is from the Lord: because security of soul
is a sign of present majesty. But if the fear with which we are
stricken persevere, it is an enemy that we see. "
Moreover it was becoming to virginal modesty that the Virgin should be
troubled. Because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 1:20: "It is the part of a
virgin to be timid, to fear the advances of men, and to shrink from
men's addresses. "
But others says that as the Blessed Virgin was accustomed to angelic
visions, she was not troubled at seeing this angel, but with wonder at
hearing what the angel said to her, for she did not think so highly of
herself. Wherefore the evangelist does not say that she was troubled at
seeing the angel, but "at his saying. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Annunciation took place in becoming order?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Annunciation did not take place in
becoming order. For the dignity of the Mother of God results from the
child she conceived. But the cause should be made known before the
effect. Therefore the angel should have announced to the Virgin the
conception of her child before acknowledging her dignity in greeting
her.
Objection 2: Further, proof should be omitted in things which admit of
no doubt; and premised where doubt is possible. But the angel seems
first to have announced what the virgin might doubt, and which, because
of her doubt, would make her ask: "How shall this be done? " and
afterwards to have given the proof, alleging both the instance of
Elizabeth and the omnipotence of God. Therefore the Annunciation was
made by the angel in unbecoming order.
Objection 3: Further, the greater cannot be adequately proved by the
less. But it was a greater wonder for a virgin than for an old woman to
be with child. Therefore the angel's proof was insufficient to
demonstrate the conception of a virgin from that of an old woman.
On the contrary, it is written (Rom. 13:1): "Those that are of God, are
well ordered [Vulg. : 'Those that are, are ordained of God']. " Now the
angel was "sent by God" to announce unto the Virgin, as is related Lk.
1:26. Therefore the Annunciation was made by the angel in the most
perfect order.
I answer that, The Annunciation was made by the angel in a becoming
manner. For the angel had a threefold purpose in regard to the Virgin.
First, to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter of such
moment. This he did by greeting her by a new and unwonted salutation.
Wherefore Origen says, commenting on Luke (Hom. vi), that if "she had
known that similar words had been addressed to anyone else, she, who
had knowledge of the Law, would never have been astonished at the
seeming strangeness of the salutation. " In which salutation he began by
asserting her worthiness of the conception, by saying, "Full of grace";
then he announced the conception in the words, "The Lord is with thee";
and then foretold the honor which would result to her therefrom, by
saying, "Blessed art thou among women. "
Secondly, he purposed to instruct her about the mystery of the
Incarnation, which was to be fulfilled in her. This he did by
foretelling the conception and birth, saying: "Behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb," etc. ; and by declaring the dignity of the child
conceived, saying: "He shall be great"; and further, by making known
the mode of conception, when he said: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee. "
Thirdly, he purposed to lead her mind to consent. This he did by the
instance of Elizabeth, and by the argument from Divine omnipotence.
Reply to Objection 1: To a humble mind nothing is more astonishing than
to hear its own excellence. Now, wonder is most effective in drawing
the mind's attention. Therefore the angel, desirous of drawing the
Virgin's attention to the hearing of so great a mystery, began by
praising her.
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose says explicitly on Lk. 1:34, that the
Blessed Virgin did not doubt the angel's words. For he says: "Mary's
answer is more temperate than the words of the priest. She says: How
shall this be? He replies: Whereby shall I know this? He denies that he
believes, since he denies that he knows this. She does not doubt
fulfilment when she asks how it shall be done. "
Augustine, however, seems to assert that she doubted. For he says (De
Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. li): "To Mary, in doubt about the
conception, the angel declares the possibility thereof. " But such a
doubt is one of wonder rather than of unbelief. And so the angel
adduces a proof, not as a cure for unbelief, but in order to remove her
astonishment.
Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says (Hexaemeron v): "For this reason
had many barren women borne children, that the virginal birth might be
credible. "
The conception of the sterile Elizabeth is therefore adduced, not as a
sufficient argument, but as a kind of figurative example. : consequently
in support of this instance, the convincing argument is added taken
from the Divine omnipotence.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MATTER FROM WHICH THE SAVIOUR'S BODY WAS CONCEIVED (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Saviour's conception. First, as to the
matter from which His body was conceived; secondly, as to the author of
His conception; thirdly, as to the manner and order of His conception.
Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam?
(2) Whether it was derived from David?
(3) Of the genealogy of Christ which is given in the Gospels;
(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be born of a woman?
(5) Whether His body was formed from the purest blood of the Virgin?
(6) Whether the flesh of Christ was in the patriarchs as to something
signate?
(7) Whether the flesh of Christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin?
(8) Whether Christ paid tithes in the loins of Abraham?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from
Adam. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:47): "The first man was of the
earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly. " Now, the first
man is Adam: and the second man is Christ. Therefore Christ is not
derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him.
Objection 2: Further, the conception of Christ should have been most
miraculous. But it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the
slime of the earth, than from human matter derived from Adam. It seems
therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from Adam. Therefore
the body of Christ should not have been formed from the mass of the
human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter.
Objection 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 God---"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 assumed 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 assume flesh of matter
derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be healed by the
assumption.
Reply to Objection 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
Godhead. But as to matter, Christ's body was earthly, as Adam's body
was.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above ([4136]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 God.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4137]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.
__________________________________________________________________
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
([4138]Q[28], A[1], ad 1,2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not
descended from David.
Objection 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 Lk. 1:5,36. Therefore, since
David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Mat. 1, it seems that
Christ was not descended from David.
Objection 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
(Is. 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 Mat. 1:1. There are
many reasons for this. First to these especially was the promise made
concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham (Gn. 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
(Mat. 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
(Gn. 15:9): "Take thee [Vulg. : 'Me'] a cow of three years old," etc. He
was also a prophet, according to Gn. 20:7: "He is a prophet; and he
shall pray for thee. " Lastly David was both king and prophet.
A third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham:
while in David God'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
circumcised and of the elect among the Gentiles.
Reply to Objection 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 assert both that Christ was of the
seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not
by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity. " For as Jerome says
on Mat. 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 to Objection 2: Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by
saying that it happened by God'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 to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 3:25, this prophetical
passage 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
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 (Is. 53:8): "Who shall
declare His generation? " Therefore Christ's genealogy should not have
been set down.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 God, counting in all seventy-seven generations, the first and
last included. It seems therefore that their accounts of Christ's
genealogy do not agree.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 God [Vulg. : 'All scripture inspired of God is profitable'],
etc. Now what is done by God is done in perfect order, according to
Rom.
13:1: "Those that are of God are ordained [Vulg. : 'Those that are,
are ordained of God']. Therefore Christ's genealogy is set down by the
evangelists in a suitable order.
Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says on Mat. 1, Isaias speaks of the
generation of Christ's Godhead. 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 to Objection 2: Various answers have been made by certain writers
to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as
Gregory of Nazianzum, 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 supposititious 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 Mat.
1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), says
that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers says
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 to Objection 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 assumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ": inasmuch as by
his carnal origin "He assumed '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, God 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 passes Abraham and continues up to God, 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 God: whereas by carnal generation the Son of God 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 God, inasmuch as
he was created by God. "
Again, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life:
because of the four parts of the world in which we pass 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 pass from the Jews to the Gentiles. "
On the other hand, Jerome (on Mat. 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 to Objection 4: As Jerome says onMat. 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. lxxxv:
"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 lxxxv,
why they were omitted by St. Matthew] was continuous. "
Reply to Objection 5: As Jerome says on Mat. 1:3: "None of the holy
women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only those whom
Scripture censures, so that He who came for the sake of sinners, by
being born of sinners, might blot out all sin. " Thus Thamar is
mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab
who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of
Urias, who was an adulteress. The last, however, is not mentioned by
name, but is designated through her husband; both on account of his
sin, for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder; and further in
order that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be
recalled. And because Luke purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator
of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does mention
Juda's brethren, in order to show that they belong to God's people:
whereas Ismael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's brother, were
cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in
Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the emptiness of pride
of birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens, and
yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Phares and Zara are
mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 3:23, "they are the
type of the twofold life of man: one, according to the Law," signified
by Zara; "the other by Faith," of which Phares is the type. The
brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all reigned at various
times: which was not the case with other kings: or, again, because they
were alike in wickedness and misfortune.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman?
Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not
have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than the
female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which
is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should not have
taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed
from the rib of a man.
Objection 2: Further, whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her
womb. But it ill becomes God, Who fills heaven and earth, as is written
Jer. 23:24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb.
Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived of a woman.
Objection 3: Further, those who are conceived of a woman contract a
certain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): "Can man be justified
compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear clean? " But it
was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in Christ: for He is the
Wisdom of God, of whom it is written (Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled thing
cometh into her. " Therefore it does not seem right that He should have
taken flesh from a woman.
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "God sent His Son, made of a
woman. "
I answer that, Although the Son of God could have taken flesh from
whatever matter He willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that He
should take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire
human nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 11):
"It was suitable that man's liberation should be made manifest in both
sexes. Consequently, since it behooved a man, being of the nobler sex,
to assume, it was becoming that the liberation of the female sex should
be manifested in that man being born of a woman. "
Secondly, because thus the truth of the Incarnation is made evident.
Wherefore Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "Thou shalt find in Christ many
things both natural, and supernatural. In accordance with nature He was
within the womb," viz. of a woman's body: "but it was above nature that
a virgin should conceive and give birth: that thou mightest believe
that He was God, who was renewing nature; and that He was man who,
according to nature, was being born of a man. " And Augustine says (Ep.
ad Volus. cxxxvii): "If Almighty God had created a man formed otherwise
than in a mother's womb, and had suddenly produced him to sight . . .
would He not have strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it
impossible for us to believe that He had become a true man? And whilst
He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken away that which
He accomplished in mercy? But now, He, the mediator between God and
man, has so shown Himself, that, uniting both natures in the unity of
one Person, He has given a dignity to ordinary by extraordinary things,
and tempered the extraordinary by the ordinary. "
Thirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished
in every variety of manner. For the first man was made from the "slime
of the earth," without the concurrence of man or woman: Eve was made of
man but not of woman: and other men are made from both man and woman.
So that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to Christ, that
He should be made of a woman without the concurrence of a man.
Reply to Objection 1: The male sex is more noble than the female, and
for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the
female sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh
of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "Men, despise
not yourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves,
women; the Son of God was born of a woman. "
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine thus (Contra Faust. xxiii) replies to
Faustus, who urged this objection; "By no means," says he, "does the
Catholic Faith, which believes that Christ the Son of God was born of a
virgin, according to the flesh, suppose that the same Son of God was so
shut up in His Mother's womb, as to cease to be elsewhere, as though He
no longer continued to govern heaven and earth, and as though He had
withdrawn Himself from the Father. But you, Manicheans, being of a mind
that admits of nought but material images, are utterly unable to grasp
these things. " For, as he again says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii), "it
belongs to the sense of man to form conceptions only through tangible
bodies, none of which can be entire everywhere, because they must of
necessity be diffused through their innumerable parts in various places
. . . Far otherwise is the nature of the soul from that of the body:
how much more the nature of God, the Creator of soul and body! . . . He
is able to be entire everywhere, and to be contained in no place. He is
able to come without moving from the place where He was; and to go
without leaving the spot whence He came. "
Reply to Objection 3: There is no uncleanness in the conception of man
from a woman, as far as this is the work of God: wherefore it is
written (Acts 10:15): "That which God hath cleansed do not thou call
common," i. e. unclean. There is, however, a certain uncleanness
therein, resulting from sin, as far as lustful desire accompanies
conception by sexual union. But this was not the case with Christ, as
shown above ([4139]Q[28], A[1]). But if there were any uncleanness
therein, the Word of God would not have been sullied thereby, for He is
utterly unchangeable. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses
v): "God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My
Birth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of
whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain,
and yet not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light
cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the flesh of Christ was conceived of the Virgin's purest blood?
Objection 1: It would seem that the flesh of Christ was not conceived
of the Virgin's purest blood: For it is said in the collect (Feast of
the Annunciation) that God "willed that His Word should take flesh from
a Virgin. " But flesh differs from blood. Therefore Christ's body was
not taken from the Virgin's blood.
Objection 2: Further, as the woman was miraculously formed from the
man, so Christ's body was formed miraculously from the Virgin. But the
woman is not said to have been formed from the man's blood, but rather
from his flesh and bones, according to Gn. 2:23: "This now is bone of
my bones, and flesh of my flesh. " It seems therefore that neither
should Christ's body have been formed from the Virgin's blood, but from
her flesh and bones.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's body was of the same species as other
men's bodies. But other men's bodies are not formed from the purest
blood but from the semen and the menstrual blood. Therefore it seems
that neither was Christ's body conceived of the purest blood of the
Virgin.
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that "the Son of
God, from the Virgin's purest blood, formed Himself flesh, animated
with a rational soul. "
I answer that, As stated above [4140](A[4]), in Christ's conception His
being born of a woman was in accordance with the laws of nature, but
that He was born of a virgin was above the laws of nature. Now, such is
the law of nature that in the generation of an animal the female
supplies the matter, while the male is the active principle of
generation; as the Philosopher proves (De Gener. Animal. i). But a
woman who conceives of a man is not a virgin. And consequently it
belongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the
active principle of generation was the supernatural power of God: but
it belongs to the natural mode of His generation, that the matter from
which His body was conceived is similar to the matter which other women
supply for the conception of their offspring. Now, this matter,
according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. ), is the woman's blood,
not any of her blood, but brought to a more perfect stage of secretion
by the mother's generative power, so as to be apt for conception. And
therefore of such matter was Christ's body conceived.
Reply to Objection 1: Since the Blessed Virgin was of the same nature
as other women, it follows that she had flesh and bones of the same
nature as theirs. Now, flesh and bones in other women are actual parts
of the body, the integrity of which results therefrom: and consequently
they cannot be taken from the body without its being corrupted or
diminished. But as Christ came to heal what was corrupt, it was not
fitting that He should bring corruption or diminution to the integrity
of His Mother. Therefore it was becoming that Christ's body should be
formed not from the flesh or bones of the Virgin, but from her blood,
which as yet is not actually a part, but is potentially the whole, as
stated in De Gener. Animal. i. Hence He is said to have taken flesh
from the Virgin, not that the matter from which His body was formed was
actual flesh, but blood, which is flesh potentially.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated in the [4141]FP, Q[92], A[3], ad 2,
Adam, through being established as a kind of principle of human nature,
had in his body a certain proportion of flesh and bone, which belonged
to him, not as an integral part of his personality, but in regard to
his state as a principle of human nature. And from this was the woman
formed, without detriment to the man. But in the Virgin's body there
was nothing of this sort, from which Christ's body could be formed
without detriment to His Mother's body.
Reply to Objection 3: Woman's semen is not apt for generation, but is
something imperfect in the seminal order, which, on account of the
imperfection of the female power, it has not been possible to bring to
complete seminal perfection. Consequently this semen is not the
necessary matter of conception; as the Philosopher says (De Gener.
Animal.
have been more excellent if she had perceived the angel himself in his
substance by her intellectual vision. But it was incompatible with her
state of wayfarer that she should see an angel in his essence.
Reply to Objection 2: The imagination is indeed a higher power than the
exterior sense: but because the senses are the principle of human
knowledge, the greatest certainty is in them, for the principles of
knowledge must needs always be most certain. Consequently Joseph, to
whom the angel appeared in his sleep, did not have so excellent a
vision as the Blessed Virgin.
Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 1:11: "We are disturbed,
and lose our presence of mind, when we are confronted by the presence
of a superior power. " And this happens not only in bodily, but also in
imaginary vision. Wherefore it is written (Gn. 15:12) that "when the
sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and darksome
horror seized upon him. " But by being thus disturbed man is not harmed
to such an extent that therefore he ought to forego the vision of an
angel. First because from the very fact that man is raised above
himself, in which matter his dignity is concerned, his inferior powers
are weakened; and from this results the aforesaid disturbance: thus,
also, when the natural heat is drawn within a body, the exterior parts
tremble. Secondly, because, as Origen says (Hom. iv in Luc. ): "The
angel who appeared, knowing hers was a human nature, first sought to
remedy the disturbance of mind to which a man is subject. " Wherefore
both to Zachary and to Mary, as soon as they were disturbed, he said:
"Fear not. " For this reason, as we read in the life of Anthony, "it is
difficult to discern good from evil spirits. For if joy succeed fear,
we should know that the help is from the Lord: because security of soul
is a sign of present majesty. But if the fear with which we are
stricken persevere, it is an enemy that we see. "
Moreover it was becoming to virginal modesty that the Virgin should be
troubled. Because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 1:20: "It is the part of a
virgin to be timid, to fear the advances of men, and to shrink from
men's addresses. "
But others says that as the Blessed Virgin was accustomed to angelic
visions, she was not troubled at seeing this angel, but with wonder at
hearing what the angel said to her, for she did not think so highly of
herself. Wherefore the evangelist does not say that she was troubled at
seeing the angel, but "at his saying. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Annunciation took place in becoming order?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Annunciation did not take place in
becoming order. For the dignity of the Mother of God results from the
child she conceived. But the cause should be made known before the
effect. Therefore the angel should have announced to the Virgin the
conception of her child before acknowledging her dignity in greeting
her.
Objection 2: Further, proof should be omitted in things which admit of
no doubt; and premised where doubt is possible. But the angel seems
first to have announced what the virgin might doubt, and which, because
of her doubt, would make her ask: "How shall this be done? " and
afterwards to have given the proof, alleging both the instance of
Elizabeth and the omnipotence of God. Therefore the Annunciation was
made by the angel in unbecoming order.
Objection 3: Further, the greater cannot be adequately proved by the
less. But it was a greater wonder for a virgin than for an old woman to
be with child. Therefore the angel's proof was insufficient to
demonstrate the conception of a virgin from that of an old woman.
On the contrary, it is written (Rom. 13:1): "Those that are of God, are
well ordered [Vulg. : 'Those that are, are ordained of God']. " Now the
angel was "sent by God" to announce unto the Virgin, as is related Lk.
1:26. Therefore the Annunciation was made by the angel in the most
perfect order.
I answer that, The Annunciation was made by the angel in a becoming
manner. For the angel had a threefold purpose in regard to the Virgin.
First, to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter of such
moment. This he did by greeting her by a new and unwonted salutation.
Wherefore Origen says, commenting on Luke (Hom. vi), that if "she had
known that similar words had been addressed to anyone else, she, who
had knowledge of the Law, would never have been astonished at the
seeming strangeness of the salutation. " In which salutation he began by
asserting her worthiness of the conception, by saying, "Full of grace";
then he announced the conception in the words, "The Lord is with thee";
and then foretold the honor which would result to her therefrom, by
saying, "Blessed art thou among women. "
Secondly, he purposed to instruct her about the mystery of the
Incarnation, which was to be fulfilled in her. This he did by
foretelling the conception and birth, saying: "Behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb," etc. ; and by declaring the dignity of the child
conceived, saying: "He shall be great"; and further, by making known
the mode of conception, when he said: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee. "
Thirdly, he purposed to lead her mind to consent. This he did by the
instance of Elizabeth, and by the argument from Divine omnipotence.
Reply to Objection 1: To a humble mind nothing is more astonishing than
to hear its own excellence. Now, wonder is most effective in drawing
the mind's attention. Therefore the angel, desirous of drawing the
Virgin's attention to the hearing of so great a mystery, began by
praising her.
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose says explicitly on Lk. 1:34, that the
Blessed Virgin did not doubt the angel's words. For he says: "Mary's
answer is more temperate than the words of the priest. She says: How
shall this be? He replies: Whereby shall I know this? He denies that he
believes, since he denies that he knows this. She does not doubt
fulfilment when she asks how it shall be done. "
Augustine, however, seems to assert that she doubted. For he says (De
Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. li): "To Mary, in doubt about the
conception, the angel declares the possibility thereof. " But such a
doubt is one of wonder rather than of unbelief. And so the angel
adduces a proof, not as a cure for unbelief, but in order to remove her
astonishment.
Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says (Hexaemeron v): "For this reason
had many barren women borne children, that the virginal birth might be
credible. "
The conception of the sterile Elizabeth is therefore adduced, not as a
sufficient argument, but as a kind of figurative example. : consequently
in support of this instance, the convincing argument is added taken
from the Divine omnipotence.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MATTER FROM WHICH THE SAVIOUR'S BODY WAS CONCEIVED (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Saviour's conception. First, as to the
matter from which His body was conceived; secondly, as to the author of
His conception; thirdly, as to the manner and order of His conception.
Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam?
(2) Whether it was derived from David?
(3) Of the genealogy of Christ which is given in the Gospels;
(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be born of a woman?
(5) Whether His body was formed from the purest blood of the Virgin?
(6) Whether the flesh of Christ was in the patriarchs as to something
signate?
(7) Whether the flesh of Christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin?
(8) Whether Christ paid tithes in the loins of Abraham?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from
Adam. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:47): "The first man was of the
earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly. " Now, the first
man is Adam: and the second man is Christ. Therefore Christ is not
derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him.
Objection 2: Further, the conception of Christ should have been most
miraculous. But it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the
slime of the earth, than from human matter derived from Adam. It seems
therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from Adam. Therefore
the body of Christ should not have been formed from the mass of the
human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter.
Objection 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 God---"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 assumed 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 assume flesh of matter
derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be healed by the
assumption.
Reply to Objection 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
Godhead. But as to matter, Christ's body was earthly, as Adam's body
was.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above ([4136]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 God.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4137]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.
__________________________________________________________________
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
([4138]Q[28], A[1], ad 1,2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not
descended from David.
Objection 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 Lk. 1:5,36. Therefore, since
David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Mat. 1, it seems that
Christ was not descended from David.
Objection 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
(Is. 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 Mat. 1:1. There are
many reasons for this. First to these especially was the promise made
concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham (Gn. 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
(Mat. 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
(Gn. 15:9): "Take thee [Vulg. : 'Me'] a cow of three years old," etc. He
was also a prophet, according to Gn. 20:7: "He is a prophet; and he
shall pray for thee. " Lastly David was both king and prophet.
A third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham:
while in David God'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
circumcised and of the elect among the Gentiles.
Reply to Objection 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 assert both that Christ was of the
seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not
by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity. " For as Jerome says
on Mat. 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 to Objection 2: Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by
saying that it happened by God'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 to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 3:25, this prophetical
passage 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
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 (Is. 53:8): "Who shall
declare His generation? " Therefore Christ's genealogy should not have
been set down.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 God, counting in all seventy-seven generations, the first and
last included. It seems therefore that their accounts of Christ's
genealogy do not agree.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 God [Vulg. : 'All scripture inspired of God is profitable'],
etc. Now what is done by God is done in perfect order, according to
Rom.
13:1: "Those that are of God are ordained [Vulg. : 'Those that are,
are ordained of God']. Therefore Christ's genealogy is set down by the
evangelists in a suitable order.
Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says on Mat. 1, Isaias speaks of the
generation of Christ's Godhead. 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 to Objection 2: Various answers have been made by certain writers
to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as
Gregory of Nazianzum, 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 supposititious 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 Mat.
1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), says
that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers says
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 to Objection 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 assumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ": inasmuch as by
his carnal origin "He assumed '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, God 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 passes Abraham and continues up to God, 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 God: whereas by carnal generation the Son of God 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 God, inasmuch as
he was created by God. "
Again, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life:
because of the four parts of the world in which we pass 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 pass from the Jews to the Gentiles. "
On the other hand, Jerome (on Mat. 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 to Objection 4: As Jerome says onMat. 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. lxxxv:
"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 lxxxv,
why they were omitted by St. Matthew] was continuous. "
Reply to Objection 5: As Jerome says on Mat. 1:3: "None of the holy
women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only those whom
Scripture censures, so that He who came for the sake of sinners, by
being born of sinners, might blot out all sin. " Thus Thamar is
mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab
who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of
Urias, who was an adulteress. The last, however, is not mentioned by
name, but is designated through her husband; both on account of his
sin, for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder; and further in
order that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be
recalled. And because Luke purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator
of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does mention
Juda's brethren, in order to show that they belong to God's people:
whereas Ismael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's brother, were
cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in
Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the emptiness of pride
of birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens, and
yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Phares and Zara are
mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 3:23, "they are the
type of the twofold life of man: one, according to the Law," signified
by Zara; "the other by Faith," of which Phares is the type. The
brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all reigned at various
times: which was not the case with other kings: or, again, because they
were alike in wickedness and misfortune.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman?
Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not
have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than the
female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which
is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should not have
taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed
from the rib of a man.
Objection 2: Further, whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her
womb. But it ill becomes God, Who fills heaven and earth, as is written
Jer. 23:24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb.
Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived of a woman.
Objection 3: Further, those who are conceived of a woman contract a
certain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): "Can man be justified
compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear clean? " But it
was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in Christ: for He is the
Wisdom of God, of whom it is written (Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled thing
cometh into her. " Therefore it does not seem right that He should have
taken flesh from a woman.
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "God sent His Son, made of a
woman. "
I answer that, Although the Son of God could have taken flesh from
whatever matter He willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that He
should take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire
human nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 11):
"It was suitable that man's liberation should be made manifest in both
sexes. Consequently, since it behooved a man, being of the nobler sex,
to assume, it was becoming that the liberation of the female sex should
be manifested in that man being born of a woman. "
Secondly, because thus the truth of the Incarnation is made evident.
Wherefore Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "Thou shalt find in Christ many
things both natural, and supernatural. In accordance with nature He was
within the womb," viz. of a woman's body: "but it was above nature that
a virgin should conceive and give birth: that thou mightest believe
that He was God, who was renewing nature; and that He was man who,
according to nature, was being born of a man. " And Augustine says (Ep.
ad Volus. cxxxvii): "If Almighty God had created a man formed otherwise
than in a mother's womb, and had suddenly produced him to sight . . .
would He not have strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it
impossible for us to believe that He had become a true man? And whilst
He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken away that which
He accomplished in mercy? But now, He, the mediator between God and
man, has so shown Himself, that, uniting both natures in the unity of
one Person, He has given a dignity to ordinary by extraordinary things,
and tempered the extraordinary by the ordinary. "
Thirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished
in every variety of manner. For the first man was made from the "slime
of the earth," without the concurrence of man or woman: Eve was made of
man but not of woman: and other men are made from both man and woman.
So that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to Christ, that
He should be made of a woman without the concurrence of a man.
Reply to Objection 1: The male sex is more noble than the female, and
for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the
female sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh
of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "Men, despise
not yourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves,
women; the Son of God was born of a woman. "
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine thus (Contra Faust. xxiii) replies to
Faustus, who urged this objection; "By no means," says he, "does the
Catholic Faith, which believes that Christ the Son of God was born of a
virgin, according to the flesh, suppose that the same Son of God was so
shut up in His Mother's womb, as to cease to be elsewhere, as though He
no longer continued to govern heaven and earth, and as though He had
withdrawn Himself from the Father. But you, Manicheans, being of a mind
that admits of nought but material images, are utterly unable to grasp
these things. " For, as he again says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii), "it
belongs to the sense of man to form conceptions only through tangible
bodies, none of which can be entire everywhere, because they must of
necessity be diffused through their innumerable parts in various places
. . . Far otherwise is the nature of the soul from that of the body:
how much more the nature of God, the Creator of soul and body! . . . He
is able to be entire everywhere, and to be contained in no place. He is
able to come without moving from the place where He was; and to go
without leaving the spot whence He came. "
Reply to Objection 3: There is no uncleanness in the conception of man
from a woman, as far as this is the work of God: wherefore it is
written (Acts 10:15): "That which God hath cleansed do not thou call
common," i. e. unclean. There is, however, a certain uncleanness
therein, resulting from sin, as far as lustful desire accompanies
conception by sexual union. But this was not the case with Christ, as
shown above ([4139]Q[28], A[1]). But if there were any uncleanness
therein, the Word of God would not have been sullied thereby, for He is
utterly unchangeable. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses
v): "God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My
Birth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of
whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain,
and yet not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light
cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the flesh of Christ was conceived of the Virgin's purest blood?
Objection 1: It would seem that the flesh of Christ was not conceived
of the Virgin's purest blood: For it is said in the collect (Feast of
the Annunciation) that God "willed that His Word should take flesh from
a Virgin. " But flesh differs from blood. Therefore Christ's body was
not taken from the Virgin's blood.
Objection 2: Further, as the woman was miraculously formed from the
man, so Christ's body was formed miraculously from the Virgin. But the
woman is not said to have been formed from the man's blood, but rather
from his flesh and bones, according to Gn. 2:23: "This now is bone of
my bones, and flesh of my flesh. " It seems therefore that neither
should Christ's body have been formed from the Virgin's blood, but from
her flesh and bones.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's body was of the same species as other
men's bodies. But other men's bodies are not formed from the purest
blood but from the semen and the menstrual blood. Therefore it seems
that neither was Christ's body conceived of the purest blood of the
Virgin.
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that "the Son of
God, from the Virgin's purest blood, formed Himself flesh, animated
with a rational soul. "
I answer that, As stated above [4140](A[4]), in Christ's conception His
being born of a woman was in accordance with the laws of nature, but
that He was born of a virgin was above the laws of nature. Now, such is
the law of nature that in the generation of an animal the female
supplies the matter, while the male is the active principle of
generation; as the Philosopher proves (De Gener. Animal. i). But a
woman who conceives of a man is not a virgin. And consequently it
belongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the
active principle of generation was the supernatural power of God: but
it belongs to the natural mode of His generation, that the matter from
which His body was conceived is similar to the matter which other women
supply for the conception of their offspring. Now, this matter,
according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. ), is the woman's blood,
not any of her blood, but brought to a more perfect stage of secretion
by the mother's generative power, so as to be apt for conception. And
therefore of such matter was Christ's body conceived.
Reply to Objection 1: Since the Blessed Virgin was of the same nature
as other women, it follows that she had flesh and bones of the same
nature as theirs. Now, flesh and bones in other women are actual parts
of the body, the integrity of which results therefrom: and consequently
they cannot be taken from the body without its being corrupted or
diminished. But as Christ came to heal what was corrupt, it was not
fitting that He should bring corruption or diminution to the integrity
of His Mother. Therefore it was becoming that Christ's body should be
formed not from the flesh or bones of the Virgin, but from her blood,
which as yet is not actually a part, but is potentially the whole, as
stated in De Gener. Animal. i. Hence He is said to have taken flesh
from the Virgin, not that the matter from which His body was formed was
actual flesh, but blood, which is flesh potentially.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated in the [4141]FP, Q[92], A[3], ad 2,
Adam, through being established as a kind of principle of human nature,
had in his body a certain proportion of flesh and bone, which belonged
to him, not as an integral part of his personality, but in regard to
his state as a principle of human nature. And from this was the woman
formed, without detriment to the man. But in the Virgin's body there
was nothing of this sort, from which Christ's body could be formed
without detriment to His Mother's body.
Reply to Objection 3: Woman's semen is not apt for generation, but is
something imperfect in the seminal order, which, on account of the
imperfection of the female power, it has not been possible to bring to
complete seminal perfection. Consequently this semen is not the
necessary matter of conception; as the Philosopher says (De Gener.
Animal.
