|
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 (Question 28, Article 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 Mt. 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 (Rm. 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 Mt.
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 (Mt. 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 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 Kgs. 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 Mt. 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."
|
|