|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct
to the Law. For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on
the Sabbath, since God "rested on the seventh day from all His work
which He had done." But He healed a man on the Sabbath, and
commanded him to take up his bed. Therefore it seems that He did not
conform His conduct to the Law.
Objection 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did,
according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But
He taught (Mt. 15:11) that "not" all "that which goeth into
the mouth defileth a man": and this is contrary to the precept of the
Law, which declared that a man was made unclean by eating and touching
certain animals, as stated Lev. 11. Therefore it seems that He
did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Objection 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same
mind as he who does it, according to Rm. 1:32: "Not only they
that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." But
Christ, by excusing His disciples, consented to their breaking the
Law by plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath; as is related Mt.
12:1-8. Therefore it seems that Christ did not conform His
conduct to the Law.
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 5:17): "Do not think
that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on
these words, Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled the Law . . . in
one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the Law; secondly,
by justifying us through faith, which the Law, in the letter, was
unable to do."
I answer that, Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the
precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be
circumcised; for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's
purpose of keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify
to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole
Law."
And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law,
first, to show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by
obeying the Law He might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own
self, so as to show that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to
deprive the Jews of an excuse for slandering Him. Fourthly, in
order to deliver men from subjection to the Law, according to Gal.
4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law that He
might redeem them who were under the Law."
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any
transgression of the Law in this matter, for three reasons. First,
the precept of the hallowing of the Sabbath forbids not Divine work,
but human work: for though God ceased on the seventh day from the
creation of new creatures, yet He ever works by keeping and governing
His creatures. Now that Christ wrought miracles was a Divine work:
hence He says (Jn. 5:17): "My Father worketh until now;
and I work."
Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does
not forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He
says (Lk. 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the
Sabbath-day loose his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead them to
water?" And farther on (Lk. 14:5): "Which of you shall
have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him
out on the Sabbath-day?" Now it is manifest that the miraculous
works done by Christ related to health of body and soul.
Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the
worship of God. Wherefore He says (Mt. 12:5): "Have ye
not read in the Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the
Temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame?" And (Jn.
7:23) it is written that a man receives circumcision on the
Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic to carry his
bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of God,
i.e. to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He
did not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false
accusation in His face, saying (Jn. 9:16): "This man is not
of God, who keepeth not the Sabbath."
Reply to Objection 2: By those words Christ wished to show that
man is made unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods
considered not in their nature, but only in some signification. And
that certain foods are in the Law called "unclean" is due to some
signification; whence Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a
question be raised about swine and lambs, both are clean by nature,
since 'all God's creatures are good'; but by a certain
signification lambs are clean and swine unclean."
Reply to Objection 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry,
they plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from
transgressing the Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as
David did not transgress the Law when, through being compelled by
hunger, he ate the loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat.
|
|