|
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for the Son of
God to assume human nature of the stock of Adam, for the Apostle
says (Heb. 7:26): "For it was fitting that we should have
such a high priest . . . separated from sinners." But He would
have been still further separated from sinners had He not assumed human
nature of the stock of Adam, a sinner. Hence it seems that He ought
not to have assumed human nature of the stock of Adam.
Objection 2: Further, in every genus the principle is nobler than
what is from the principle. Hence, if He wished to assume human
nature, He ought to have assumed it in Adam himself.
Objection 3: Further, the Gentiles were greater sinners than the
Jews, as a gloss says on Gal. 2:15: "For we by nature are
Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Hence, if He wished to
assume human nature from sinners, He ought rather to have assumed it
from the Gentiles than from the stock of Abraham, who was just.
On the contrary, (Lk. 3), the genealogy of our Lord is traced
back to Adam.
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 18):
"God was able to assume human nature elsewhere than from the stock of
Adam, who by his sin had fettered the whole human race; yet God
judged it better to assume human nature from the vanquished race, and
thus to vanquish the enemy of the human race." And this for three
reasons: First, because it would seem to belong to justice that he
who sinned should make amends; and hence that from the nature which he
had corrupted should be assumed that whereby satisfaction was to be made
for the whole nature. Secondly, it pertains to man's greater dignity
that the conqueror of the devil should spring from the stock conquered
by the devil. Thirdly, because God's power is thereby made more
manifest, since, from a corrupt and weakened nature, He assumed that
which was raised to such might and glory.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ ought to be separated from sinners as
regards sin, which He came to overthrow, and not as regards nature
which He came to save, and in which "it behooved Him in all things
to be made like to His brethren," as the Apostle says (Heb.
2:17). And in this is His innocence the more wonderful, seeing
that though assumed from a mass tainted by sin, His nature was endowed
with such purity.
Reply to Objection 2: As was said above (ad 1) it behooved Him
Who came to take away sins to be separated from sinners as regards
sin, to which Adam was subject, whom Christ "brought out of his
sin," as is written (Wis. 10:2). For it behooved Him Who
came to cleanse all, not to need cleansing Himself; just as in every
genus of motion the first mover is immovable as regards that motion,
and the first to alter is itself unalterable. Hence it was not fitting
that He should assume human nature in Adam himself.
Reply to Objection 3: Since Christ ought especially to be
separated from sinners as regards sin, and to possess the highest
innocence, it was fitting that between the first sinner and Christ
some just men should stand midway, in whom certain forecasts of
(His) future holiness should shine forth. And hence, even in the
people from whom Christ was to be born, God appointed signs of
holiness, which began in Abraham, who was the first to receive the
promise of Christ, and circumcision, as a sign that the covenant
should be kept, as is written (Gn. 17:11).
|
|