FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354  
355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   >>   >|  
continuous." Reply Obj. 5: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:3: "None of the holy women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only those whom Scripture censures, so that He who came for the sake of sinners, by being born of sinners, might blot out all sin." Thus Thamar is mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, who was an adulteress. The last, however, is not mentioned by name, but is designated through her husband; both on account of his sin, for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder; and further in order that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be recalled. And because Luke purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does mention Juda's brethren, in order to show that they belong to God's people: whereas Ismael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's brother, were cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the emptiness of pride of birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens, and yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Phares and Zara are mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Luke 3:23, "they are the type of the twofold life of man: one, according to the Law," signified by Zara; "the other by Faith," of which Phares is the type. The brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all reigned at various times: which was not the case with other kings: or, again, because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune. _______________________ FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 4] Whether the Matter of Christ's Body Should Have Been Taken from a Woman? Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed from the rib of a man. Obj. 2: Further, whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her womb. But it ill becomes God, Who fills heaven and earth, as is written Jer. 23:24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb. Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived of a woman. Obj. 3: Further, those who are conce
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354  
355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

mentioned

 

Christ

 
brethren
 

Therefore

 
people
 

brother

 
husband
 

sinners

 
conceived
 

Phares


mention

 
Further
 

genealogy

 
Should
 
signified
 

included

 

Jechonias

 

wickedness

 

Whether

 

reigned


misfortune
 

FOURTH

 
ARTICLE
 
Matter
 

formed

 
narrow
 

limits

 

heaven

 

written

 
nature

matter
 

Objection

 
suitable
 

assume

 

perfect

 
female
 

foreigner

 

Bethsabee

 

censured

 

father


account

 

cognizant

 

designated

 

adulteress

 

Thamar

 
Saviour
 

Jerome

 

continuous

 

Scripture

 
censures