|
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law does not fulfil the
Old. Because to fulfil and to void are contrary. But the New Law
voids or excludes the observances of the Old Law: for the Apostle
says (Gal. 5:2): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit
you nothing." Therefore the New Law is not a fulfilment of the
Old.
Objection 2: Further, one contrary is not the fulfilment of
another. But Our Lord propounded in the New Law precepts that were
contrary to precepts of the Old Law. For we read (Mt.
5:27-32): You have heard that it was said to them of old: .
. . "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of
divorce. But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife .
. . maketh her to commit adultery." Furthermore, the same
evidently applies to the prohibition against swearing, against
retaliation, and against hating one's enemies. In like manner Our
Lord seems to have done away with the precepts of the Old Law
relating to the different kinds of foods (Mt. 15:11): "Not
that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man: but what cometh out
of the mouth, this defileth a man." Therefore the New Law is not a
fulfilment of the Old.
Objection 3: Further, whoever acts against a law does not fulfil
the law. But Christ in certain cases acted against the Law. For
He touched the leper (Mt. 8:3), which was contrary to the
Law. Likewise He seems to have frequently broken the sabbath; since
the Jews used to say of Him (Jn. 9:16): "This man is not of
God, who keepeth not the sabbath." Therefore Christ did not fulfil
the Law: and so the New Law given by Christ is not a fulfilment of
the Old.
Objection 4: Further, the Old Law contained precepts, moral,
ceremonial, and judicial, as stated above (Question 99, Article
4). But Our Lord (Mt. 5) fulfilled the Law in some
respects, but without mentioning the judicial and ceremonial precepts.
Therefore it seems that the New Law is not a complete fulfilment of
the Old.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mt. 5:17): "I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfil": and went on to say (Mt. 5:18):
"One jot or one tittle shall not pass of the Law till all be
fulfilled."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the New Law is
compared to the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. Now everything
perfect fulfils that which is lacking in the imperfect. And
accordingly the New Law fulfils the Old by supplying that which was
lacking in the Old Law.
Now two things of every law is to make men righteous and virtuous, as
was stated above (Question 92, Article 1): and consequently the
end of the Old Law was the justification of men. The Law,
however, could not accomplish this: but foreshadowed it by certain
ceremonial actions, and promised it in words. And in this respect,
the New Law fulfils the Old by justifying men through the power of
Christ's Passion. This is what the Apostle says (Rm.
8:3,4): "What the Law could not do . . . God sending His
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . hath condemned sin in
the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in
us." And in this respect, the New Law gives what the Old Law
promised, according to 2 Cor. 1:20: "Whatever are the
promises of God, in Him," i.e. in Christ, "they are
'Yea'." Again, in this respect, it also fulfils what the Old
Law foreshadowed. Hence it is written (Col. 2:17) concerning
the ceremonial precepts that they were "a shadow of things to come,
but the body is of Christ"; in other words, the reality is found in
Christ. Wherefore the New Law is called the law of reality;
whereas the Old Law is called the law of shadow or of figure.
Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in His works
and in His doctrine. In His works, because He was willing to be
circumcised and to fulfil the other legal observances, which were
binding for the time being; according to Gal. 4:4: "Made under
the Law." In His doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in
three ways. First, by explaining the true sense of the Law. This
is clear in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which
the Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act:
wherefore Our Lord fulfilled the Law by showing that the prohibition
extended also to the interior acts of sins. Secondly, Our Lord
fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing the safest way of
complying with the statutes of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law
forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided, by abstaining
altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency. Thirdly, Our
Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law, by adding some counsels of
perfection: this is clearly seen in Mt. 19:21, where Our Lord
said to the man who affirmed that he had kept all the precepts of the
Old Law: "One thing is wanting to thee: If thou wilt be perfect,
go, sell whatsoever thou hast," etc..
Reply to Objection 1: The New Law does not void observance of the
Old Law except in the point of ceremonial precepts, as stated above
(Question 103, Articles 3,4). Now the latter were
figurative of something to come. Wherefore from the very fact that the
ceremonial precepts were fulfilled when those things were accomplished
which they foreshadowed, it follows that they are no longer to be
observed: for it they were to be observed, this would mean that
something is still to be accomplished and is not yet fulfilled. Thus
the promise of a future gift holds no longer when it has been fulfilled
by the presentation of the gift. In this way the legal ceremonies are
abolished by being fulfilled.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix,
26), those precepts of Our Lord are not contrary to the precepts
of the Old Law. For what Our Lord commanded about a man not
putting away his wife, is not contrary to what the Law prescribed.
"For the Law did not say: 'Let him that wills, put his wife
away': the contrary of which would be not to put her away. On the
contrary, the Law was unwilling that a man should put away his wife,
since it prescribed a delay, so that excessive eagerness for divorce
might cease through being weakened during the writing of the bill.
Hence Our Lord, in order to impress the fact that a wife ought not
easily to be put away, allowed no exception save in the case of
fornication." The same applies to the prohibition about swearing, as
stated above. The same is also clear with respect to the prohibition
of retaliation. For the Law fixed a limit to revenge, by forbidding
men to seek vengeance unreasonably: whereas Our Lord deprived them of
vengeance more completely by commanding them to abstain from it
altogether. With regard to the hatred of one's enemies, He
dispelled the false interpretation of the Pharisees, by admonishing us
to hate, not the person, but his sin. As to discriminating between
various foods, which was a ceremonial matter, Our Lord did not
forbid this to be observed: but He showed that no foods are naturally
unclean, but only in token of something else, as stated above
(Question 102, Article 6, ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: It was forbidden by the Law to touch a
leper; because by doing so, man incurred a certain uncleanness of
irregularity, as also by touching the dead, as stated above
(Question 102, Article 5, ad 4). But Our Lord, Who
healed the leper, could not contract an uncleanness. By those things
which He did on the sabbath, He did not break the sabbath in
reality, as the Master Himself shows in the Gospel: both because
He worked miracles by His Divine power, which is ever active among
things; and because He worked miracles by His Divine power, which
is ever active among things; and because His works were concerned with
the salvation of man, while the Pharisees were concerned for the
well-being of animals even on the sabbath; and again because on
account of urgency He excused His disciples for gathering the ears of
corn on the sabbath. But He did seem to break the sabbath according
to the superstitious interpretation of the Pharisees, who thought that
man ought to abstain from doing even works of kindness on the sabbath;
which was contrary to the intention of the Law.
Reply to Objection 4: The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the
Law are not mentioned in Mt. 5 is because, as stated above (ad
1), their observance was abolished by their fulfilment. But of the
judicial precepts He mentioned that of retaliation: so that what He
said about it should refer to all the others. With regard to this
precept, He taught that the intention of the Law was that retaliation
should be sought out of love of justice, and not as a punishment out of
revengeful spite, which He forbade, admonishing man to be ready to
suffer yet greater insults; and this remains still in the New Law.
|
|