Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova legem veterem non impleat. Impletio enim contrariatur evacuationi.

Sed lex nova evacuat, vel excludit observantias legis veteris, dicit enim apostolus, ad Gal. V, si circumcidimini, christus nihil vobis proderit.

Ergo lex nova non est impletiva veteris legis.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, contrarium non est impletivum sui contrarii.

Sed dominus in lege nova proposuit quaedam praecepta contraria praeceptis veteris legis.

Dicitur enim Matth. V, audistis quia dictum est antiquis, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det ei libellum repudii. Ego autem dico vobis, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, facit eam moechari.

Et idem consequenter patet in prohibitione iuramenti, et etiam in prohibitione talionis, et in odio inimicorum.

Similiter etiam videtur dominus exclusisse praecepta veteris legis de discretione ciborum, Matth. XV, non quod intrat in os, coinquinat hominem.

Ergo lex nova non est impletiva veteris.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quicumque contra legem agit, non implet legem.

Sed christus in aliquibus contra legem fecit.

Tetigit enim leprosum, ut dicitur Matth. VIII, quod erat contra legem. Similiter etiam videtur sabbatum pluries violasse, unde de eo dicebant Iudaei, Ioan. IX, non est hic homo a deo, qui sabbatum non custodit.

Ergo christus non implevit legem.

Et ita lex nova data a christo, non est veteris impletiva.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, in veteri lege continebantur praecepta moralia, caeremonialia et iudicialia, ut supra dictum est.

Sed dominus, Matth. V, ubi quantum ad aliqua legem implevit, nullam mentionem videtur facere de iudicialibus et caeremonialibus. Ergo videtur quod lex nova non sit totaliter veteris impletiva.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. V, non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere.

Et postea, subdit, iota unum, aut unus apex, non praeteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex nova comparatur ad veterem sicut perfectum ad imperfectum.

Omne autem perfectum adimplet id quod imperfecto deest.

Et secundum hoc lex nova adimplet veterem legem, inquantum supplet illud quod veteri legi deerat.

In veteri autem lege duo possunt considerari, scilicet finis; et praecepta contenta in lege. Finis vero cuiuslibet legis est ut homines efficiantur iusti et virtuosi, ut supra dictum est.

Unde et finis veteris legis erat iustificatio hominum. Quam quidem lex efficere non poterat, sed figurabat quibusdam caeremonialibus factis, et promittebat verbis. Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova implet veterem legem iustificando virtute passionis christi.

Et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VIII, quod impossibile erat legi, deus, filium suum mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, damnavit peccatum in carne, ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis.

Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova exhibet quod lex vetus promittebat; secundum illud II ad Cor. I, quotquot promissiones dei sunt, in illo est, idest in christo.

Et iterum quantum ad hoc etiam complet quod vetus lex figurabat. Unde ad colos. II dicitur de caeremonialibus quod erant umbra futurorum, corpus autem christi, idest, veritas pertinet ad christum. Unde lex nova dicitur lex veritatis, lex autem vetus umbrae vel figurae. Praecepta vero veteris legis adimplevit christus et opere, et doctrina. Opere quidem, quia circumcidi voluit, et alia legalia observare, quae erant illo tempore observanda; secundum illud Gal. IV, factum sub lege.

Sua autem doctrina adimplevit praecepta legis tripliciter. Primo quidem, verum intellectum legis exprimendo. Sicut patet in homicidio et adulterio, in quorum prohibitione Scribae et Pharisaei non intelligebant nisi exteriorem actum prohibitum, unde dominus legem adimplevit, ostendendo etiam interiores actus peccatorum cadere sub prohibitione. Secundo, adimplevit dominus praecepta legis, ordinando quomodo tutius observaretur quod lex vetus statuerat. Sicut lex vetus statuerat ut homo non peiuraret, et hoc tutius observatur si omnino a iuramento abstineat, nisi in casu necessitatis.

Tertio, adimplevit dominus praecepta legis, superaddendo quaedam perfectionis consilia, ut patet Matth. XIX, ubi dominus dicenti se observasse praecepta veteris legis, dicit, unum tibi deest.

Si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes, etc..

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod lex nova non evacuat observantiam veteris legis nisi quantum ad caeremonialia, ut supra habitum est.

Haec autem erant in figuram futuri. Unde ex hoc ipso quod caeremonialia praecepta sunt impleta, perfectis his quae figurabantur, non sunt ulterius observanda, quia si observarentur, adhuc significaretur aliquid ut futurum et non impletum. Sicut etiam promissio futuri doni locum iam non habet, promissione iam impleta per doni exhibitionem et per hunc modum, caeremoniae legis tolluntur cum implentur.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra faustum, praecepta illa domini non sunt contraria praeceptis veteris legis quod enim dominus praecepit de uxore non dimittenda, non est contrarium ei quod lex praecepit.

Neque enim ait lex, qui voluerit, dimittat uxorem; cui esset contrarium non dimittere.

Sed utique nolebat dimitti uxorem a viro, qui hanc interposuit moram, ut in dissidium animus praeceps libelli conscriptione refractus absisteret. Unde dominus, ad hoc confirmandum ut non facile uxor dimittatur, solam causam fornicationis excepit.

Et idem etiam dicendum est in prohibitione iuramenti, sicut dictum est.

Et idem etiam patet in prohibitione talionis.

Taxavit enim modum vindictae lex, ut non procederetur ad immoderatam vindictam, a qua dominus perfectius removit eum quem monuit omnino a vindicta abstinere. Circa odium vero inimicorum, removit falsum Pharisaeorum intellectum, nos monens ut persona odio non haberetur, sed culpa. Circa discretionem vero ciborum, quae caeremonialis erat, dominus non mandavit ut tunc non observaretur, sed ostendit quod nulli cibi secundum suam naturam erant immundi, sed solum secundum figuram, ut supra dictum est.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod tactus leprosi erat prohibitus in lege, quia ex hoc incurrebat homo quandam irregularitatis immunditiam, sicut et ex tactu mortui, ut supra dictum est.

Sed dominus, qui erat mundator leprosi, immunditiam incurrere non poterat. Per ea autem quae fecit in sabbato, sabbatum non solvit secundum rei veritatem, sicut ipse magister in evangelio ostendit, tum quia operabatur miracula virtute divina, quae semper operatur in rebus; tum quia salutis humanae opera faciebat, cum Pharisaei etiam saluti animalium in die sabbati providerent; tum quia etiam ratione necessitatis discipulos excusavit in sabbato spicas colligentes. Sed videbatur solvere secundum superstitiosum intellectum Pharisaeorum, qui credebant etiam a salubribus operibus esse in die sabbati abstinendum, quod erat contra intentionem legis.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod caeremonialia praecepta legis non commemorantur Matth. V, quia eorum observantia totaliter excluditur per impletionem, ut dictum est.

De iudicialibus vero praeceptis commemoravit praeceptum talionis, ut quod de hoc diceretur, de omnibus aliis esset intelligendum. In quo quidem praecepto docuit legis intentionem non esse ad hoc quod poena talionis quaereretur propter livorem vindictae, quem ipse excludit, monens quod homo debet esse paratus etiam maiores iniurias sufferre, sed solum propter amorem iustitiae.

Quod adhuc in nova lege remanet.