|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable
place. For Christ suffered according to His human nature, which was
conceived in Nazareth and born in Bethlehem. Consequently it seems
that He ought not to have suffered in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth or
Bethlehem.
Objection 2: Further, the reality ought to correspond with the
figure. But Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of
the Old Law, and these were offered up in the Temple. Therefore it
seems that Christ ought to have suffered in the Temple, and not
outside the city gate.
Objection 3: Further, the medicine should correspond with the
disease. But Christ's Passion was the medicine against Adam's
sin: and Adam was not buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron; for it
is written (Josue 14:15): "The name of Hebron before was
called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the greatest in the land of the Enacims
was laid there."
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 13:33): "It cannot be
that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." Therefore it was fitting
that He should die in Jerusalem.
I answer that, According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov.
Test., qu. lv, "the Saviour did everything in its proper place
and season," because, as all things are in His hands, so are all
places: and consequently, since Christ suffered at a suitable time,
so did He in a suitable place.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ died most appropriately in
Jerusalem. First of all, because Jerusalem was God's chosen place
for the offering of sacrifices to Himself: and these figurative
sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's Passion, which is a true
sacrifice, according to Eph. 5:2: "He hath delivered Himself
for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of
sweetness." Hence Bede says in a Homily (xxiii): "When the
Passion drew nigh, our Lord willed to draw nigh to the place of the
Passion"---that is to say, to Jerusalem---whither He came
five days before the Pasch; just as, according to the legal precept,
the Paschal lamb was led to the place of immolation five days before
the Pasch, which is the tenth day of the moon.
Secondly, because the virtue of His Passion was to be spread over
the whole world, He wished to suffer in the center of the habitable
world---that is, in Jerusalem. Accordingly it is written (Ps.
73:12): "But God is our King before ages: He hath wrought
salvation in the midst of the earth"---that is, in Jerusalem,
which is called "the navel of the earth" [Jerome's comment on
Ezech. 5:5].
Thirdly, because it was specially in keeping with His humility:
that, as He chose the most shameful manner of death, so likewise it
was part of His humility that He did not refuse to suffer in so
celebrated a place. Hence Pope Leo says (Serm. I in Epiph.):
"He who had taken upon Himself the form of a servant chose Bethlehem
for His nativity and Jerusalem for His Passion."
Fourthly, He willed to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests
dwelt, to show that the wickedness of His slayers arose from the
chiefs of the Jewish people. Hence it is written (Acts 4:27):
"There assembled together in this city against Thy holy child Jesus
whom Thou hast anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentiles and the people of Israel."
Reply to Objection 2: For three reasons Christ suffered outside
the gate, and not in the Temple nor in the city. First of all, that
the truth might correspond with the figure. For the calf and the goat
which were offered in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of
the entire multitude were burnt outside the camp, as commanded in
Lev. 16:27. Hence it is written (Heb. 13:27): "For
the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holies by
the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore
Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood,
suffered without the gate."
Secondly, to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation.
Accordingly the passage continues: "Let us go forth therefore to
Him without the camp, bearing His reproach."
Thirdly, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (Hom. i
De Cruce et Latrone): "The Lord was not willing to suffer under
a roof, nor in the Jewish Temple, lest the Jews might take away the
saving sacrifice, and lest you might think He was offered for that
people only. Consequently, it was beyond the city and outside the
walls, that you may learn it was a universal sacrifice, an oblation
for the whole world, a cleansing for all."
Reply to Objection 3: According to Jerome, in his commentary on
Mt. 27:33, "someone explained 'the place of Calvary' as
being the place where Adam was buried; and that it was so called
because the skull of the first man was buried there. A pleasing
interpretation indeed, and one suited to catch the ear of the people,
but, still, not the true one. For the spots where the condemned are
beheaded are outside the city and beyond the gates, deriving thence the
name of Calvary---that is, of the beheaded. Jesus, accordingly,
was crucified there, that the standards of martyrdom might be uplifted
over what was formerly the place of the condemned. But Adam was
buried close by Hebron and Arbe, as we read in the book of Jesus
Ben Nave." But Jesus was to be crucified in the common spot of the
condemned rather than beside Adam's sepulchre, to make it manifest
that Christ's cross was the remedy, not only for Adam's personal
sin, but also for the sin of the entire world.
|
|