Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 62

We must now consider Christ's circ.u.mcision. And since the circ.u.mcision is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify ... to every man circ.u.mcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole Law," we shall have at the same time to inquire about the other legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ. Therefore there are four points of inquiry:

(1) His circ.u.mcision;

(2) The imposition of His name;

(3) His presentation;

(4) His Mother's purification.

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 1]

Whether Christ Should Have Been Circ.u.mcised?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been circ.u.mcised. For on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But circ.u.mcision was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity, as may be seen from Gen. 17. Now this covenant was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore circ.u.mcision should have ceased at once.

Obj. 2: Further, "every action of Christ is a lesson to us" [*Innoc.

III, Serm. xxii de Temp.]; wherefore it is written (John 3:15): "I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also." But we ought not to be circ.u.mcised; according to Gal. 5:2: "If you be circ.u.mcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Therefore it seems that neither should Christ have been circ.u.mcised.

Obj. 3: Further, circ.u.mcision was prescribed as a remedy of original sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above (Q.

14, A. 3; Q. 15, A. 1). Therefore Christ should not have been circ.u.mcised.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circ.u.mcised."

_I answer that,_ For several reasons Christ ought to have been circ.u.mcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature, in contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ's body was consubstantial with His G.o.dhead; and in contradiction to Valentine, who said that Christ brought His body from heaven. Secondly, in order to show His approval of circ.u.mcision, which G.o.d had inst.i.tuted of old. Thirdly, in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had received the commandment of circ.u.mcision as a sign of his faith in Him. Fourthly, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if He were uncirc.u.mcised. Fifthly, "in order by His example to exhort us to be obedient" [*Bede, Hom. x in Evang.]. Wherefore He was circ.u.mcised on the eighth day according to the prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3).

Sixthly, "that He who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed."

Seventhly, that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to Gal. 4:4, 5: "G.o.d sent His Son ... made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law."

Reply Obj. 1: Circ.u.mcision by the removal of the piece of skin in the member of generation, signified "the pa.s.sing away of the old generation" [*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circ.u.mcis.]: from the decrepitude of which we are freed by Christ's Pa.s.sion. Consequently this figure was not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Pa.s.sion, until which time the circ.u.mcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore it behooved Christ to be circ.u.mcised as a son of Abraham before His Pa.s.sion.

Reply Obj. 2: Christ submitted to circ.u.mcision while it was yet of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time.

Because "there is a time and opportunity for every business" (Eccl 8:6).

Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.), "as we died when He died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we circ.u.mcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal circ.u.mcision." And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "In whom," [i.e. Christ] "you are circ.u.mcised with circ.u.mcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circ.u.mcision of" our Lord Jesus "Christ."

Reply Obj. 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our death, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in order to deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto sin, so also He took upon Himself circ.u.mcision, which was a remedy against original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order to deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual circ.u.mcision in us--in order, that is to say, that, by taking upon Himself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 2]

Whether His Name Was Suitably Given to Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ. For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written (Isa. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel"; and (Isa. 8:3): "Call His name, Hasten to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and (Isa. 9:6): "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor G.o.d the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and (Zech. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name."

Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be called Jesus.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa. 62:2): "Thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg.: 'shall name']." But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:29), "Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be called Jesus."

Obj. 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear from Matt. 1:21: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." But salvation through Christ was accomplished not only in the circ.u.mcision, but also in uncirc.u.mcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rom. 4:11, 12). Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at His circ.u.mcision.

On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written (Luke 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circ.u.mcised, His name was called Jesus."

_I answer that,_ A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is clear in the names of genera and species, as stated _Metaph._ iv: "Since a name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a thing's proper nature.

Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him "by his father's name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there" was "none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this name," as related Luke 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the name of" the "first-born Mana.s.ses, saying: G.o.d hath made me to forget all my labors" (Gen. 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person who receives the name; thus it is written (Gen. 25:25) that "he that came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called Esau," which is interpreted "red."

But names given to men by G.o.d always signify some gratuitous gift bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gen. 17:5): "Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many nations": and it was said to Peter (Matt. 16:18): "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." Since, therefore, this prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i.e. Saviour: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother, but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster-father.

Reply Obj. 1: All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means "salvation." For the name "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is 'G.o.d with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of G.o.d, the result of which union was that "G.o.d is with us."

When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc., these words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils He took away, according to Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the princ.i.p.alities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently."

When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc., the way and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as "by the wonderful counsel and might of the G.o.dhead we are brought to the inheritance of the life to come," in which the children of G.o.d will enjoy "perfect peace" under "G.o.d their Prince."

When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up in darkness" (Ps. 111:4).

Reply Obj. 2: The name Jesus could be suitable for some other reason to those who lived before Christ--for instance, because they were saviours in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of spiritual and universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and thus it is called a "new" name.

Reply Obj. 3: As is related Gen. 17, Abraham received from G.o.d and at the same time both his name and the commandment of circ.u.mcision. For this reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the very day of circ.u.mcision, as though before being circ.u.mcised they had not as yet perfect existence: just as now also children receive their names in Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, "I was my father's son, tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother," the gloss says: "Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother, when Scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth?" Therefore it was that Christ received His name at the time of His circ.u.mcision.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 3]

Whether Christ Was Becomingly Presented in the Temple?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in the Temple. For it is written (Ex. 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel." But Christ came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; and thus He did not open His Mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this law to be presented in the Temple.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is always in one's presence cannot be presented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in G.o.d's presence in the highest degree, as being always united to Him in unity of person. Therefore there was no need for Him to be presented to the Lord.

Obj. 3: Further, Christ is the princ.i.p.al victim, to whom all the victims of the old Law are referred, as the figure to the reality.

But a victim should not be offered up for a victim. Therefore it was not fitting that another victim should be offered up for Christ.

Obj. 4: Further, among the legal victims the princ.i.p.al was the lamb, which was a "continual sacrifice" [Vulg.: 'holocaust'], as is stated Num. 28:6: for which reason Christ is also called "the Lamb--Behold the Lamb of G.o.d" (John 1: 29). It was therefore more fitting that a lamb should be offered for Christ than "a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons."

On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as having taken place (Luke 2:22).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), Christ wished to be "made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law"

(Gal. 4:4, 5), and that the "justification of the Law might be"

spiritually "fulfilled" in His members. Now, the Law contained a twofold precept touching the children born. One was a general precept which affected all--namely, that "when the days of the mother's purification were expired," a sacrifice was to be offered either "for a son or for a daughter," as laid down Lev. 12:6. And this sacrifice was for the expiation of the sin in which the child was conceived and born; and also for a certain consecration of the child, because it was then presented in the Temple for the first time. Wherefore one offering was made as a holocaust and another for sin.

The other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of "both man and beast": for the Lord claimed for Himself all the first-born in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He "slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle"

(Ex. 12:12, 13, 29), the first-born of Israel being saved; which law is set down Ex. 13. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is "the First-born amongst many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).

Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born, and since He wished to be "made under the Law," the Evangelist Luke shows that both these precepts were fulfilled in His regard. First, as to that which concerns the first-born, when he says (Luke 2:22, 23): "They carried Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord: as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.'" Secondly, as to the general precept which concerned all, when he says (Luke 2:24): "And to offer a sacrifice according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons."

Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom.): "It seems that this precept of the Law was fulfilled in G.o.d incarnate alone in a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to s.e.xual union, in such a way that after birth the seal of chast.i.ty remained inviolate."

Consequently the words "opening the womb" imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for a special reason is it written "'a male,' because He contracted nothing of the woman's sin": and in a singular way "is He called 'holy,' because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate" (Ambrose, on Luke 2:23).

Reply Obj. 2: As the Son of G.o.d "became man, and was circ.u.mcised in the flesh, not for His own sake, but that He might make us to be G.o.d's through grace, and that we might be circ.u.mcised in the spirit; so, again, for our sake He was presented to the Lord, that we may learn to offer ourselves to G.o.d" [*Athanasius, on Luke 2:23]. And this was done after His circ.u.mcision, in order to show that "no one who is not circ.u.mcised from vice is worthy of Divine regard" [*Bede, on Luke 2:23].