Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Having considered those things which relate to Christ's entrance into
the world, or to His beginning, it remains for us to consider those that
relate to the process of His life. And we must consider (1) His manner of
life; (2) His temptation; (3) His doctrine; (4) His miracles.
Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ should have led a solitary life, or have associated
with men?
(2) Whether He should have led an austere life as regards food, drink,
and clothing? Or should He have conformed Himself to others in these
respects?
(3) Whether He should have adopted a lowly state of life, or one of
wealth and honor?
(4) Whether He should have lived in conformity with the Law?
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have associated with men,
but should have led a solitary life. For it behooved Christ to show by
His manner of life not only that He was man, but also that He was God.
But it is not becoming that God should associate with men, for it is
written (@Dan. 2:11): "Except the gods, whose conversation is not with
men"; and the Philosopher says (Polit. i) that he who lives alone is
"either a beast"---that is, if he do this from being wild---"or a god,"
if his motive be the contemplation of truth. Therefore it seems that it
was not becoming for Christ to associate with men.
Objection 2: Further, while He lived in mortal flesh, it behooved Christ to
lead a most perfect life. But the most perfect is the contemplative life,
as we have stated in the SS, Question [182], Articles [1],2. Now, solitude is most
suitable to the contemplative life; according to Osee 2:14: "I will lead
her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart." Therefore it
seems that Christ should have led a solitary life.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's manner of life should have been uniform:
because it should always have given evidence of that which is best. But
at times Christ avoided the crowd and sought lonely places: hence
Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea, Matth. 5:1], commenting on Matthew, says:
"We read that our Lord had three places of refuge: the ship, the
mountain, the desert; to one or other of which He betook Himself whenever
he was harassed by the crowd." Therefore He ought always to have led a
solitary life.
On the contrary, It is written (Baruch 3:38): "Afterwards He was seen
upon earth and conversed with men."
I answer that, Christ's manner of life had to be in keeping with the
end of His Incarnation, by reason of which He came into the world. Now He
came into the world, first, that He might publish the truth. thus He says
Himself (@Jn. 18:37): "For this was I born, and for this came I into the
world, that I should give testimony to the truth." Hence it was fitting
not that He should hide Himself by leading a solitary life, but that He
should appear openly and preach in public. Wherefore (@Lk. 4:42,43) He
says to those who wished to stay Him: "To other cities also I must preach
the kingdom of God: for therefore am I sent."
Secondly, He came in order to free men from sin; according to 1 Tim.
1:15: "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." And hence, as
Chrysostom says, "although Christ might, while staying in the same place,
have drawn all men to Himself, to hear His preaching, yet He did not do
so; thus giving us the example to go about and seek those who perish,
like the shepherd in his search of the lost sheep, and the physician in
his attendance on the sick."
Thirdly, He came that by Him "we might have access to God," as it is
written (@Rm. 5:2). And thus it was fitting that He should give men
confidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with them.
Wherefore it is written (@Mt. 9:10): "It came to pass as He was sitting .
. . in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came, and sat down
with Jesus and His disciples." On which Jerome comments as follows: "They
had seen the publican who had been converted from a sinful to a better
life: and consequently they did not despair of their own salvation."
Reply to Objection 1: Christ wished to make His Godhead known through His human
nature. And therefore, since it is proper to man to do so, He associated
with men, at the same time manifesting His Godhead to all, by preaching
and working miracles, and by leading among men a blameless and righteous
life.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated in the SS, Question [182], Article [1]; SS, Question [188], Article [6], the
contemplative life is, absolutely speaking, more perfect than the active
life, because the latter is taken up with bodily actions: yet that form
of active life in which a man, by preaching and teaching, delivers to
others the fruits of his contemplation, is more perfect than the life
that stops at contemplation, because such a life is built on an abundance
of contemplation, and consequently such was the life chosen by Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's action is our instruction. And therefore, in order
to teach preachers that they ought not to be for ever before the public,
our Lord withdrew Himself sometimes from the crowd. We are told of three
reasons for His doing this. First, for the rest of the body: hence (Mk.
6:31) it is stated that our Lord said to His disciples: "Come apart into
a desert place, and rest a little. For there were many coming and going:
and they had not so much as time to eat." But sometimes it was for the
sake of prayer; thus it is written (@Lk. 6:12): "It came to pass in those
days, that He went out into a mountain to pray; and He passed the whole
night in the prayer of God." On this Ambrose remarks that "by His example
He instructs us in the precepts of virtue." And sometimes He did so in
order to teach us to avoid the favor of men. Wherefore Chrysostom,
commenting on Mt. 5:1, Jesus, "seeing the multitude, went up into a
mountain," says: "By sitting not in the city and in the market-place, but
on a mountain and in a place of solitude, He taught us to do nothing for
show, and to withdraw from the crowd, especially when we have to
discourse of needful things."
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that it was becoming that Christ should lead an
austere life in this world. For Christ preached the perfection of life
much more than John did. But John led an austere life in order that he
might persuade men by his example to embrace a perfect life; for it is
written (@Mt. 3:4) that "the same John had his garment of camel's hair and
a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild
honey"; on which Chrysostom comments as follows (Hom. x): "It was a
marvelous and strange thing to behold such austerity in a human frame:
which thing also particularly attracted the Jews." Therefore it seems
that an austere life was much more becoming to Christ.
Objection 2: Further, abstinence is ordained to continency; for it is written
(Osee 4:10): "They shall eat and shall not be filled; they have committed
fornication, and have not ceased." But Christ both observed continency in
Himself and proposed it to be observed by others when He said (@Mt. 19:12): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven: he that can take it let him take it." Therefore it
seems that Christ should have observed an austere life both in Himself
and in His disciples.
Objection 3: Further, it seems absurd for a man to begin a stricter form of
life and to return to an easier life: for one might quote to his
discredit that which is written, Lk. 14:30: "This man began to build, and
was not able to finish." Now Christ began a very strict life after His
baptism, remaining in the desert and fasting for "forty days and forty
nights." Therefore it seems unbecoming that, after leading such a strict
life, He should return to the common manner of living.
On the contrary, It is written (@Mt. 11:19): "The Son of Man came eating
and drinking."
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), it was in keeping with the end of
the Incarnation that Christ should not lead a solitary life, but should
associate with men. Now it is most fitting that he who associates with
others should conform to their manner of living; according to the words
of the Apostle (@1 Cor. 9:22): "I became all things to all men." And
therefore it was most fitting that Christ should conform to others in the
matter of eating and drinking. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi)
that "John is described as 'neither eating nor drinking,' because he did
not take the same food as the Jews. Therefore, unless our Lord had taken
it, it would not be said of Him, in contrast, 'eating and drinking.'"
Reply to Objection 1: In His manner of living our Lord gave an example of
perfection as to all those things which of themselves relate to
salvation. Now abstinence in eating and drinking does not of itself
relate to salvation, according to Rm. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not
meat and drink." And Augustine (De Qq. Evang. ii, qu. 11) explains Mt.
11:19, "Wisdom is justified by her children," saying that this is because
the holy apostles "understood that the kingdom of God does not consist in
eating and drinking, but in suffering indigence with equanimity," for
they are neither uplifted by affluence, nor distressed by want. Again (De
Doctr. Christ. iii), he says that in all such things "it is not making
use of them, but the wantonness of the user, that is sinful." Now both
these lives are lawful and praiseworthy---namely, that a man withdraw
from the society of other men and observe abstinence; and that he
associate with other men and live like them. And therefore our Lord
wished to give men an example of either kind of life.
As to John, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvii super Matth.), "he
exhibited no more than his life and righteous conduct . . . but Christ
had the testimony also of miracles. Leaving, therefore, John to be
illustrious by his fasting, He Himself came the opposite way, both coming
unto publicans' tables and eating and drinking."
Reply to Objection 2: Just as by abstinence other men acquire the power of
self-restraint, so also Christ, in Himself and in those that are His,
subdued the flesh by the power of His Godhead. Wherefore, as we read Mt.
9:14, the Pharisees and the disciples of John fasted, but not the
disciples of Christ. On which Bede comments, saying that "John drank
neither wine nor strong drink: because abstinence is meritorious where
the nature is weak. But why should our Lord, whose right by nature it is
to forgive sins, avoid those whom He could make holier than such as
abstain?"
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.), "that thou
mightest learn how great a good is fasting, and how it is a shield
against the devil, and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up,
not to luxury, but to fasting---for this cause did He fast, not as
needing it Himself, but as teaching us . . . And for this did He proceed
no further than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might
seem incredible." The mystical meaning, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in
Evang.), is that by Christ's example the number "forty" is observed in
His fast, because the power of the "decalogue is fulfilled throughout the
four books of the Holy Gospel: since ten multiplied by four amounts to
forty." Or, because "we live in this mortal body composed of the four
elements, and by its lusts we transgress the commandments of the Lord,
which are expressed in the decalogue." Or, according to Augustine (Questions.
lxxxiii, qu. 81): "To know the Creator and the creature is the entire
teaching of wisdom. The Creator is the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost. Now the creature is partly invisible, as the soul, to
which the number three may be ascribed, for we are commanded to love God
in three ways, 'with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole
mind'; and partly visible, as the body, to which the number four is
applicable on account of its being subject to heat, moisture, cold, and
dryness. Hence if we multiply ten, which may be referred to the entire
moral code, by four, which number may be applied to the body, because it
is the body that executes the law, the product is the number forty: in
which," consequently, "the time during which we sigh and grieve is shown
forth." And yet there was no inconsistency in Christ's returning to the
common manner of living, after fasting and (retiring into the) desert.
For it is becoming to that kind of life, which we hold Christ to have
embraced, wherein a man delivers to others the fruits of his
contemplation, that he devote himself first of all to contemplation, and
that he afterwards come down to the publicity of active life by
associating with other men. Hence Bede says on Mk. 2:18: "Christ fasted,
that thou mightest not disobey the commandment; He ate with sinners, that
thou mightest discern His sanctity and acknowledge His power."
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have led a life of poverty
in this world. Because Christ should have embraced the most eligible form
of life. But the most eligible form of life is that which is a mean
between riches and poverty; for it is written (@Prov. 30:8): "Give me
neither beggary nor riches; give me only the necessaries of life."
Therefore Christ should have led a life, not of poverty, but of
moderation.
Objection 2: Further, external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food and
raiment. But Christ conformed His manner of life to those among whom He
lived, in the matter of food and raiment. Therefore it seems that He
should have observed the ordinary manner of life as to riches and
poverty, and have avoided extreme poverty.
Objection 3: Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example of
humility, according to Mt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and
humble of heart." But humility is most commendable in the rich; thus it
is written (@1 Tim. 6:11): "Charge the rich of this world not to be
high-minded." Therefore it seems that Christ should not have chosen a
life of poverty.
On the contrary, It is written (@Mt. 8:20): "The Son of Man hath not
where to lay His head": as though He were to say as Jerome observes: "Why
desirest thou to follow Me for the sake of riches and worldly gain, since
I am so poor that I have not even the smallest dwelling-place, and I am
sheltered by a roof that is not Mine?" And on Mt. 17:26: "That we may not
scandalize them, go to the sea," Jerome says: "This incident, taken
literally, affords edification to those who hear it when they are told
that our Lord was so poor that He had not the wherewithal to pay the tax
for Himself and His apostles."
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in
this world. First, because this was in keeping with the duty of
preaching, for which purpose He says that He came (Mk. 1:38): "Let us go
into the neighboring towns and cities, that I may preach there also: for
to this purpose am I come." Now in order that the preachers of God's word
may be able to give all their time to preaching, they must be wholly free
from care of worldly matters: which is impossible for those who are
possessed of wealth. Wherefore the Lord Himself, when sending the
apostles to preach, said to them (@Mt. 10:9): "Do not possess gold nor
silver." And the apostles (@Acts 6:2) say: "It is not reasonable that we
should leave the word of God and serve tables."
Secondly, because just as He took upon Himself the death of the body in
order to bestow spiritual life on us, so did He bear bodily poverty, in
order to enrich us spiritually, according to 2 Cor. 8:9: "You know the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: that . . . He became poor for our [Vulg.:
'your'] sakes that through His poverty we [Vulg.: 'you'] might be rich."
Thirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to
cupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on Mt. 10:9, that if the disciples had
been possessed of wealth, "they had seemed to preach for gain, not for
the salvation of mankind." And the same reason applies to Christ.
Fourthly, that the more lowly He seemed by reason of His poverty, the
greater might the power of His Godhead be shown to be. Hence in a sermon
of the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, c. ix) we read: "He chose all that was
poor and despicable, all that was of small account and hidden from the
majority, that we might recognize His Godhead to have transformed the
terrestrial sphere. For this reason did He choose a poor maid for His
Mother, a poorer birthplace; for this reason did He live in want. Learn
this from the manger."
Reply to Objection 1: Those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance
of riches and beggary, in as far as these are occasions of sin: since
abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud; and beggary is an
occasion of thieving and lying, or even of perjury. But forasmuch as
Christ was incapable of sin, He had not the same motive as Solomon for
avoiding these things. Yet neither is every kind of beggary an occasion
of theft and perjury, as Solomon seems to add (@Prov. 30:8); but only that
which is involuntary, in order to avoid which, a man is guilty of theft
and perjury. But voluntary poverty is not open to this danger: and such
was the poverty chosen by Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: A man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with
others, not only by possessing riches, but also by receiving the
necessaries of life from those who are rich. This is what happened in
regard to Christ: for it is written (@Lk. 8:2,3) that certain women
followed Christ and "ministered unto Him of their substance." For, as
Jerome says on Mt. 27:55, "It was a Jewish custom, nor was it thought
wrong for women, following the ancient tradition of their nation, out of
their private means to provide their instructors with food and clothing.
But as this might give scandal to the heathens, Paul says that he gave it
up": thus it was possible for them to be fed out of a common fund, but
not to possess wealth, without their duty of preaching being hindered by
anxiety.
Reply to Objection 3: Humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor of
necessity. But in one who, like Christ, is poor willingly, poverty itself
is a sign of very great humility.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.
For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the Sabbath, since
God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." But
He healed a man on the Sabbath, and commanded him to take up his bed.
Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Objection 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to Acts
1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught (@Mt. 15:11) that
"not" all "that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man": and this is
contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared that a man was made
unclean by eating and touching certain animals, as stated Lev. 11.
Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Objection 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he
who does it, according to Rm. 1:32: "Not only they that do them, but they
also that consent to them that do them." But Christ, by excusing His
disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of
corn on the Sabbath; as is related Mt. 12:1-8. Therefore it seems that
Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.
On the contrary, It is written (@Mt. 5:17): "Do not think that I am come
to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on these words,
Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled the Law . . . in one way, by transgressing
none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through
faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable to do."
I answer that, Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the
precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be circumcised;
for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of
keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify to every man
circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law."
And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to
show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by obeying the Law He
might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show
that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse
for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to
the Law, according to Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the
Law that He might redeem them who were under the Law."
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the Law
in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the hallowing of
the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for though God
ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new creatures, yet He ever
works by keeping and governing His creatures. Now that Christ wrought
miracles was a Divine work: hence He says (@Jn. 5:17): "My Father worketh
until now; and I work."
Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not
forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says (@Lk. 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his ox or his
ass from the manger, and lead them to water?" And farther on (@Lk. 14:5):
"Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not
immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?" Now it is manifest that the
miraculous works done by Christ related to health of body and soul.
Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the
worship of God. Wherefore He says (@Mt. 12:5): "Have ye not read in the
Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath,
and are without blame?" And (@Jn. 7:23) it is written that a man receives
circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic
to carry his bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of
God, i.e. to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He did
not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false accusation in
His face, saying (@Jn. 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the
Sabbath."
Reply to Objection 2: By those words Christ wished to show that man is made
unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered not in
their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain foods are
in the Law called "unclean" is due to some signification; whence
Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a question be raised about swine
and lambs, both are clean by nature, since 'all God's creatures are
good'; but by a certain signification lambs are clean and swine unclean."
Reply to Objection 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked the
ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing the
Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress
the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate the loaves which
it was not lawful for him to eat.