|
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."
|
|