|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law was not suitably given
at the time of Moses. Because the Old Law disposed man for the
salvation which was to come through Christ, as stated above
(Articles 2,3). But man needed this salutary remedy immediately
after he had sinned. Therefore the Law should have been given
immediately after sin.
Objection 2: Further, the Old Law was given for the
sanctification of those from whom Christ was to be born. Now the
promise concerning the "seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16)
was first made to Abraham, as related in Gn. 12:7. Therefore
the Law should have been given at once at the time of Abraham.
Objection 3: Further, as Christ was born of those alone who
descended from Noe through Abraham, to whom the promise was made; so
was He born of no other of the descendants of Abraham but David, to
whom the promise was renewed, according to 2 Kgs. 23:1: "The
man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of
Jacob . . . said." Therefore the Old Law should have been given
after David, just as it was given after Abraham.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 3:19) that the Law
"was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to
whom He made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a
Mediator": ordained, i.e. "given in orderly fashion," as the
gloss explains. Therefore it was fitting that the Old Law should be
given in this order of time.
I answer that, It was most fitting for the Law to be given at the
time of Moses. The reason for this may be taken from two things in
respect of which every law is imposed on two kinds of men. Because it
is imposed on some men who are hard-hearted and proud, whom the law
restrains and tames: and it is imposed on good men, who, through
being instructed by the law, are helped to fulfil what they desire to
do. Hence it was fitting that the Law should be given at such a time
as would be appropriate for the overcoming of man's pride. For man
was proud of two things, viz. of knowledge and of power. He was
proud of his knowledge, as though his natural reason could suffice him
for salvation: and accordingly, in order that his pride might be
overcome in this matter, man was left to the guidance of his reason
without the help of a written law: and man was able to learn from
experience that his reason was deficient, since about the time of
Abraham man had fallen headlong into idolatry and the most shameful
vices. Wherefore, after those times, it was necessary for a written
law to be given as a remedy for human ignorance: because "by the Law
is the knowledge of sin" (Rm. 3:20). But, after man had been
instructed by the Law, his pride was convinced of his weakness,
through his being unable to fulfil what he knew. Hence, as the
Apostle concludes (Rm. 8:3,4), "what the Law could not do
in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent His own Son . . .
that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."
With regard to good men, the Law was given to them as a help; which
was most needed by the people, at the time when the natural law began
to be obscured on account of the exuberance of sin: for it was fitting
that this help should be bestowed on men in an orderly manner, so that
they might be led from imperfection to perfection; wherefore it was
becoming that the Old Law should be given between the law of nature
and the law of grace.
Reply to Objection 1: It was not fitting for the Old Law to be
given at once after the sin of the first man: both because man was so
confident in his own reason, that he did not acknowledge his need of
the Old Law; because as yet the dictate of the natural law was not
darkened by habitual sinning.
Reply to Objection 2: A law should not be given save to the
people, since it is a general precept, as stated above (Question
90, Articles 2,3); wherefore at the time of Abraham God gave
men certain familiar, and, as it were, household precepts: but when
Abraham's descendants had multiplied, so as to form a people, and
when they had been freed from slavery, it was fitting that they should
be given a law; for "slaves are not that part of the people or state
to which it is fitting for the law to be directed," as the
Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 2,4,5).
Reply to Objection 3: Since the Law had to be given to the
people, not only those, of whom Christ was born, received the Law,
but the whole people, who were marked with the seal of circumcision,
which was the sign of the promise made to Abraham, and in which he
believed, according to Rm. 4:11: hence even before David, the
Law had to be given to that people as soon as they were collected
together.
|
|