Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod christus non fuerit conversatus secundum legem. Lex enim praecipiebat ut nihil operis in sabbato fieret, sicut deus die septimo requievit ab omni opere quod patrarat.

Sed ipse in sabbato curavit hominem, et ei mandavit ut tolleret lectum suum. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit secundum legem conversatus.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, eadem christus fecit et docuit, secundum illud Act. I, coepit iesus facere et docere.

Sed ipse docuit, Matth. XV, quod omne quod intrat in os, non coinquinat hominem, quod est contra praeceptum legis, quae per esum et contactum quorundam animalium dicebat hominem immundum fieri, ut patet Levit. XI.

Ergo videtur quod ipse non fuerit secundum legem conversatus.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, idem iudicium videtur esse facientis et consentientis, secundum illud Rom. I, non solum illi qui faciunt, sed qui consentiunt facientibus.

Sed christus consensit discipulis solventibus legem in hoc quod sabbato spicas vellebant, excusando eos, ut habetur Matth. XII.

Ergo videtur quod christus non conversatus fuerit secundum legem.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. V, nolite putare quoniam veni solvere legem aut prophetas.

Quod exponens chrysostomus dicit, legem implevit, primo quidem, nihil transgrediendo legalium; secundo, iustificando per fidem, quod lex per litteram facere non valebat.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod christus in omnibus secundum legis praecepta conversatus est. In cuius signum, etiam voluit circumcidi, circumcisio enim est quaedam protestatio legis implendae, secundum illud Galat. V, testificor omni homini circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae.

Voluit autem christus secundum legem conversari, primo quidem, ut legem veterem comprobaret. Secundo, ut eam observando in seipso consummaret et terminaret, ostendens quod ad ipsum erat ordinata. Tertio, ut Iudaeis occasionem calumniandi subtraheret.

Quarto, ut homines a servitute legis liberaret, secundum illud Galat. IV, misit deus filium suum factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus super hoc se excusat a transgressione legis tripliciter. Uno quidem modo, quia per praeceptum de sanctificatione sabbati non interdicitur opus divinum, sed humanum opus, quamvis enim deus die septima cessaverit a novis creaturis condendis, semper tamen operatur in rerum conservatione et gubernatione. Quod autem christus miracula faciebat, erat operis divini.

Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. V, pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.

Secundo, excusat se per hoc quod illo praecepto non prohibentur opera quae sunt de necessitate salutis corporalis.

Unde ipse dicit, Luc. XIII, unusquisque vestrum non solvet sabbato bovem suum aut asinum a praesepio, et ducit adaquare? et infra, XIV, cuius vestrum asinus aut bos in puteum cadit, et non continuo extrahet illum die sabbati? manifestum est autem quod opera miraculorum quae christus faciebat, ad salutem corporis et animae pertinebant. Tertio, quia illo praecepto non prohibentur opera quae pertinent ad dei cultum unde dicit, Matth. XII, an non legistis in lege quia sabbatis sacerdotes in templo sabbatum violant, et sine crimine sunt? et Ioan. VII dicitur quod circumcisionem accipit homo in sabbato.

Quod autem christus paralytico mandavit ut lectum suum sabbato portaret, ad cultum dei pertinebat, idest ad laudem virtutis divinae. Et patet quod sabbatum non solvebat.

Quamvis hoc ei Iudaei falso obiicerent, dicentes, Ioan. IX, non est hic homo a deo, qui sabbatum non custodit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod christus voluit ostendere per illa verba quod homo non redditur immundus secundum animam ex usu ciborum quorumcumque secundum suam naturam, sed solum secundum quandam significationem. Quod autem in lege quidam cibi dicuntur immundi, hoc est propter quandam significationem.

Unde Augustinus dicit, contra faustum, si de porco et agno requiratur, utrumque natura mundum est, quia omnis creatura dei bona est, quadam vero significatione agnus mundus, porcus immundus est.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam discipuli, quando esurientes spicas sabbato vellebant, a transgressione legis excusantur propter necessitatem famis, sicut et David non fuit transgressor legis quando, propter necessitatem famis, comedit panes quos ei edere non licebat.