Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Tertia Pars·Q35. Christ's nativity
Source context
- Theme
- theological analysis of Christ's nativity — mode, agent, and fittingness of the Incarnation's birth-event
Steiner
- GA 127, 1911-12-26Steiner addresses the historical and esoteric background of the December 25 date for Christ's nativity, linking it to the loss of an ancient truth whereby the festival of Christ's birth came to displace older initiatory knowledge, and noting the symbolic placement of Adam and Eve's day immediately preceding it in the calendar.
- GA 96, 1906-12-17Steiner treats Christ's nativity as the birth of the highest spiritual reality out of cosmic depths, associating the festival with the image of life emerging from the earthly and connecting it to living spiritual forces symbolised in Christmas imagery.
Cross-tradition
- Jewish Second Temple expectation (Messianic birth)The expectation of a divinely-appointed birth fulfilling prophetic lineage (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2) provides the scriptural substrate Aquinas works with in Q35, framing nativity as covenantal completion — a structural parallel to the anthroposophical motif of the Incarnation as cosmic turning-point prepared through Hebrew prophetic tradition.
- Neoplatonism (procession of the One into matter)Plotinian procession (Enneads V.1) offers a cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's insistence that the divine nature is in no way diminished or changed by being born into a human body, as procession in Neoplatonic thought does not impoverish the originating principle.
Q35. Christ's nativity
Article 1
[III.q.35.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that nativity regards the nature rather than the person. For Augustine [Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum): "The eternal Divine Nature could not be conceived and born of human nature, except in a true human nature." Consequently it becomes the Divine Nature to be conceived and born by reason of the human nature. Much more, therefore, does it regard human nature itself.
[III.q.35.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod in sacramento ordinis non conferatur gratia gratum faciens; quia communiter dicitur quod sacramentum ordinis ordinatur contra defectum ignorantiæ. Sed contra ignorantiam non datur gratia gratum faciens, sed gratia gratis data; quia gratia gratum faciens magis respicit affectum. Ergo in sacramento ordinis non datur gratia gratum faciens.
[III.q.35.a.1.arg.2] Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), "nature" is so denominated from "nativity." But things are denominated from one another by reason of some likeness. Therefore it seems that nativity regards the nature rather than the person.
[III.q.35.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, ordo distinctionem importat. Sed membra Ecclesiæ non distinguentur per gratiam gratum facientem, sed secundum gratiam gratis datam, de qua dicitur I Corinth., xii, 4: Divisiones gratiarum sunt. Ergo in ordine non datur gratia gratum faciens.
[III.q.35.a.1.arg.3] Further, properly speaking, that is born which begins to exist by nativity. But Christ's Person did not begin to exist by His nativity, whereas His human nature did. Therefore it seems that the nativity properly regards the nature, and not the person.
[III.q.35.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, nulla causa præsupponit effectum suum. Sed in eo qui accedit ad ordines, præsupponit gratia per quam fit idoneus ad susceptionem ordinis. Ergo talis gratia non confertur in ordinis collatione.
[III.q.35.a.1.sc] Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Nativity regards the hypostasis, not the nature."
[III.q.35.a.1.sc] Sed contra, sacramenta novæ legis efficiunt quod figurant. Sed ordo per numerum septenarium significat septem dona Spiritus sancti, ut in Littera dicitur IV, dist. xxiv. Ergo dona Spiritus sancti, quæ non sunt sine gratia gratum faciente, in ordine dantur. Præterea, ordo est sacramentum novæ legis. Sed in definitione talis sacramenti ponitur, « ut causa gratia existat. » Ergo causat gratiam in suscipiente.
[III.q.35.a.1.co] Nativity can be attributed to someone in two ways: first, as to its subject; secondly, as to its terminus. To him that is born it is attributed as to its subject: and this, properly speaking, is the hypostasis, not the nature. For since to be born is to be generated; as a thing is generated in order for it to be, so is a thing born in order for it to be. Now, to be, properly speaking, belongs to that which subsists; since a form that does not subsist is said to be only inasmuch as by it something is: and whereas person or hypostasis designates something as subsisting, nature designates form, whereby something subsists. Consequently, nativity is attributed to the person or hypostasis as to the proper subject of being born, but not to the nature.
But to the nature nativity is attributed as to its terminus. For the terminus of generation and of every nativity is the form. Now, nature designates something as a form: wherefore nativity is said to be "the road to nature," as the Philosopher states (Phys. ii): for the purpose of nature is terminated in the form or nature of the species.
[III.q.35.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod Dei perfecta sunt opera, ut dicitur Deuter., xxxii, 4. Et ideo cuicumque datur potentia aliqua divinitus, dantur etiam ea per quæ executio illius potentiæ possit congrue fieri. Et hoc etiam in naturalibus patet, quia animalibus dantur membra, quibus potentiæ animæ possint exire in actus suos, nisi sit defectus ex parte materiae. Sicut autem gratia gratum faciens est necessaria ad hoc quod homo digne sacramenta dispenset. Et ideo sicut in baptismo, per quem fit homo susceptivus aliorum sacramentorum, datur gratia gratum faciens; ita in sacramento ordinis, per quod homo ordinatur ad aliorum sacramentorum dispensationem.
[III.q.35.a.1.ad.1] On account of the identity of nature and hypostasis in God, nature is sometimes put instead of person or hypostasis. And in this sense Augustine says that the Divine Nature was conceived and born, inasmuch as the Person of the Son was conceived and born in the human nature.
[III.q.35.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ordo datur non in remedium unius personæ, sed totius Ecclesiæ. Unde quod dicitur contra ignorantiam dari, non est intelligendum ita quod per susceptionem ordinis pellatur ignorantia in suscipiente; sed quia suscipiens ordinem præficitur ad pellendam ignorantiam in plebe.
[III.q.35.a.1.ad.2] No movement or change is denominated from the subject moved, but from the terminus of the movement, whence the subject has its species. For this reason nativity is not denominated from the person born, but from nature, which is the terminus of nativity.
[III.q.35.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis dona gratiae gratum facientis communia sint omnibus membris Ecclesiæ, tamen illorum actus donorum secundum quæ attenditur distinctio in membris Ecclesiæ, idoneus susceptor aliquis esse non potest, nisi charitas adsit: quæ quidem sine gratia gratum faciente esse non potest.
[III.q.35.a.1.ad.3] Nature, properly speaking, does not begin to exist: rather is it the person that begins to exist in some nature. Because, as stated above, nature designates that by which something is; whereas person designates something as having subsistent being.
[III.q.35.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ad idoneam executionem ordinum non sufficit bonitas qualiscumque, sed requiritur bonitas excellens; ut sicut illi qui ordinem suscipiunt, super plebem constituuntur gradu ordinis, ita et superiores sint merito sanctitatis. Et ideo præexigitur gratia quæ sufficiat ad hoc quod digne connumerentur in plebe Christi; sed confertur in ipso susceptione ordinis amplius gratia munus, per quod ad majora reddantur idonei.
Article 2
[III.q.35.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that temporal nativity is not to be attributed to Christ. For "to be born is a certain movement of a thing that did not exist before it was born, which movement procures for it the benefit of existence" [Cf. Augustine, De Unit. Trin. xii]. But Christ was from all eternity. Therefore He could not be born in time.
[III.q.35.a.2.arg.2] Further, what is perfect in itself needs not to be born. But the Person of the Son of God was perfect from eternity. Therefore He needs not to be born in time. Therefore it seems that He had no temporal birth.
[III.q.35.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, omnis character est indelebilis. Ergo per characterem homo ponitur in tali statu, a quo non possit recedere. Sed illi qui habent aliquos ordines, possunt licite redire ad laicatum. Ergo non imprimitur character in omnibus ordinibus.
[III.q.35.a.2.arg.3] Further, properly speaking, nativity regards the person. But in Christ there is only one person. Therefore in Christ there is but one nativity.
[III.q.35.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, per characterem homo adscrititur ad aliquid sacramentum dandum, vel suscipiendum. Sed ad suscepitionem sacramentorum homo sufficienter ordinatur per characterem baptismalem; dispensator autem sacramentorum non constituitur homo nisi in ordine sacerdotali. Ergo in aliis ordinibus non imprimitur character.
[III.q.35.a.2.arg.4] Further, what is born by two nativities is born twice. But this proposition is false; "Christ was born twice": because the nativity whereby He was born of the Father suffers no interruption; since it is eternal. Whereas interruption is required to warrant the use of the adverb "twice": for a man is said to run twice whose running is interrupted. Therefore it seems that we should not admit a double nativity in Christ.
[III.q.35.a.2.sc] Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "We confess two nativities in Christ: one of the Father--eternal; and one which occurred in these latter times for our sake."
[III.q.35.a.2.sc] Sed contra, omne sacramentum in quo non imprimitur character, est iterabile. Sed nullus ordo est iterabilis. Ergo in quolibet ordine imprimitur character. Præterea, character est signum distinctivum. Sed in quolibet ordine est aliqua distinctivum. Ergo quilibet ordo imprimitur characterem.
[III.q.35.a.2.co] As stated above (Article 1), nature is compared to nativity, as the terminus to movement or change. Now, movement is diversified according to the diversity of its termini, as the Philosopher shows (Phys. v). But, in Christ there is a twofold nature: one which He received of the Father from eternity, the other which He received from His Mother in time. Therefore we must needs attribute to Christ a twofold nativity: one by which He was born of the Father from all eternity; one by which He was born of His Mother in time.
[III.q.35.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hoc fuit triplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod in solo ordine sacerdotali character imprimitur; sed hoc non est verum, quia actum diaconi nullus potest exercere licite, nisi diaconus; et ita patet quod habeat aliquam spiritualem potestatem in dispensatione sacramentorum, quam alii non habent. Et propter hoc alii dixerunt quod in sacris ordinibus imprimitur character, non autem in minoribus. Sed hoc iterum nihil est, quia per quemlibet ordinem aliquis constituitur supra plebem in aliquo gradu potestatis ordinatæ ad sacramentorum dispensationem. Unde cum character sit signum distinctivum ab aliis, oportet quod in omnibus character imprimatur: cujus etiam signum est quod perpetuo manent, et nunquam iterantur. Et hæc est tertia opinio, quæ communior est.
[III.q.35.a.2.ad.1] This was the argument of a certain heretic, Felician, and is solved thus by Augustine (Contra Felic. xii). "Let us suppose," says he, "as many maintain, that in the world there is a universal soul, which, by its ineffable movement, so gives life to all seed, that it is not compounded with things begotten, but bestows life that they may be begotten. Without doubt, when this soul reaches the womb, being intent on fashioning the passible matter to its own purpose, it unites itself to the personality thereof, though manifestly it is not of the same substance; and thus of the active soul and passive matter, one man is made out of two substances. And so we confess that the soul is born from out the womb; but not as though, before birth, it was nothing at all in itself. Thus, then, but in a way much more sublime, the Son of God was born as man, just as the soul is held to be born together with the body: not as though they both made one substance, but that from both, one person results. Yet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to exist: lest it be thought that His Divinity is temporal. Nor do we acknowledge the flesh of the Son of God to have been from eternity: lest it be thought that He took, not a true human body, but some resemblance thereof."
[III.q.35.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quilibet ordo vel habet actum circa ipsum sacramentum, vel ordinat ad sacramentorum dispensationem; sicut ostiarii habent actum admittendi homines ad divinorum sacramentorum inspectionem, et sic de aliis: et ideo in omnibus requiritur spiritualis potestas.
[III.q.35.a.2.ad.2] This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is thus solved by Cyril in an epistle [Cf. Acta Concil. Ephes., p. 1, cap. viii]: "We do not say that the Son of God had need, for His own sake, of a second nativity, after that which is from the Father: for it is foolish and a mark of ignorance to say that He who is from all eternity, and co-eternal with the Father, needs to begin again to exist. But because for us and for our salvation, uniting the human nature to His Person, He became the child of a woman, for this reason do we say that He was born in the flesh."
[III.q.35.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum quod quantumcumque homo ad laicatum se transferat, semper tamen manet in eo character: quod patet ex hoc quod si ad clericatum revertatur, non iterum ordinem, quem habuerat, suscipit.
[III.q.35.a.2.ad.3] Nativity regards the person as its subject, the nature as its terminus. Now, it is possible for several transformations to be in the same subject: yet must they be diversified in respect of their termini. But we do not say this as though the eternal nativity were a transformation or a movement, but because it is designated by way of a transformation or movement.
[III.q.35.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum sicut ad primum. Nicolai: « vel ordinatum ad sacramentorum, » etc. Exemplum Ven. an. 1486; « vel sacramentorum dispensationem. » SUMMA THEOLOGICA.
[III.q.35.a.2.ad.4] Christ can be said to have been born twice in respect of His two nativities. For just as he is said to run twice who runs at two different times, so can He be said to be born twice who is born once from eternity and once in time: because eternity and time differ much more than two different times, although each signifies a measure of duration.
Article 3
[III.q.35.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called Christ's Mother in respect of His temporal nativity. For, as stated above (Question 32, Article 4), the Blessed Virgin Mary did not cooperate actively in begetting Christ, but merely supplied the matter. But this does not seem sufficient to make her His Mother: otherwise wood might be called the mother of the bed or bench. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called the Mother of Christ.
[III.q.35.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod character ordinis non præsupponat characterem baptismalem, quia per characterem ordinis homo efficitur dispensator sacramentorum; per characterem baptismalem susceptivus eorumdem. Sed potestas activa non præsupponit de necessitate passivam, quia potest esse sine ea, sicut patet in Deo. Ergo character ordinis non præsupponit de necessitate characterem baptismalem.
[III.q.35.a.3.arg.2] Further, Christ was born miraculously of the Blessed Virgin. But a miraculous begetting does not suffice for motherhood or sonship: for we do not speak of Eve as being the daughter of Adam. Therefore neither should Christ be called the Son of the Blessed Virgin.
[III.q.35.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, potest contingere quod aliquis non sit baptizatus, qui se baptizatum existimat probabiliter. Si ergo talis ad ordines accedat, non consequitur characterem ordinis, si character ordinis præsupponit characterem baptismalem: et sic ea quæ faciet vel in consecratione, vel in absolutione, nihil erunt; et in hoc Ecclesia decipietur, quod est inconveniens.
[III.q.35.a.3.arg.3] Further, motherhood seems to imply partial separation of the semen. But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), "Christ's body was formed, not by a seminal process, but by the operation of the Holy Ghost." Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of Christ.
[III.q.35.a.3.sc] It is written (Matthew 1:18): "The generation of Christ was in this wise. When His Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph," etc.
[III.q.35.a.3.sc] Sed contra, baptismus est janua sacramentorum. Ergo cum ordo sit quoddam sacramentum, præsupponit baptismum.
[III.q.35.a.3.co] The Blessed Virgin Mary is in truth and by nature the Mother of Christ. For, as we have said above (5, 2; 31, 5), Christ's body was not brought down from heaven, as the heretic Valentine maintained, but was taken from the Virgin Mother, and formed from her purest blood. And this is all that is required for motherhood, as has been made clear above (31, 5; 32, 4). Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly Christ's Mother.
[III.q.35.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod nihil potest aliquis recipere cujus receptivam potentiam non habet. Per characterem autem baptismalem efficitur homo receptivus aliorum sacramentorum. Unde qui characterem baptismalem non habet, nullum aliud sacramentum recipere potest. Et sic character ordinis baptismalem characterem præsupponit.
[III.q.35.a.3.ad.1] As stated above (Question 32, Article 3), not every generation implies fatherhood or motherhood and sonship, but only the generation of living things. Consequently when inanimate things are made from some matter, the relationship of motherhood and sonship does not follow from this, but only in the generation of living things, which is properly called nativity.
[III.q.35.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in eo qui habet potentiam activam a se, potentia activa non præsupponit passivam; sed in eo qui habet potentiam activam ab alio, præexigitur ad potentiam activam potentia passiva, quæ recipere possit potentiam activam.
[III.q.35.a.3.ad.2] As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "The temporal nativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way, natural, since a Man was born of a woman, and after the due lapse of time from His conception: but it is also supernatural, because He was begotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin, above the law of conception." Thus, then, on the part of the mother, this nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation of the Holy Ghost it was supernatural. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is the true and natural Mother of Christ.
[III.q.35.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod talis, si ad sacerdotium promoveatur, non est sacerdos: nec conficere potest, nec absolvere in foro pœnitentiali. Unde secundum canones debet baptizari, et iterato ordinari, sicut dicitur extra, De presbytero non baptizato, cap. « Si quis, » et cap. « Veniens. » Et si etiam in episcopum promoveatur, illi quos ordinat, non habent ordinem. Sed tamen pie credi potest quod quantum ad ultimos effectus sacramentorum, summus sacerdos suppleret defectum; et quod non permitteret hoc ita latere, quod Ecclesiæ posset periculum imminere.
[III.q.35.a.3.ad.3] As stated above (31, 5, ad 3; 32, 4), the resolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception; neither, therefore, is it required for motherhood.
Article 4
[III.q.35.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God. For in the Divine mysteries we should not make any assertion that is not taken from Holy Scripture. But we read nowhere in Holy Scripture that she is the mother or parent of God, but that she is the "mother of Christ" or of "the Child," as may be seen from Matthew 1:18. Therefore we should not say that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.
[III.q.35.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod ordo præsupponat de necessitate characterem confirmationis, quia in his quæ sunt ordinata ad invicem, sicut medium præsupponit primum, ita ultimum præsupponit medium. Sed character confirmationis præsupponit baptismalem, quasi primum. Ergo character ordinis præsupponit characterem confirmationis quasi medium.
[III.q.35.a.4.arg.2] Further, Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature. But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God.
[III.q.35.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, qui ad alios confirmandos ponuntur, maxime debent esse firmi. Sed illi qui sacramentum ordinis suscipiunt, sunt aliorum confirmatores. Ergo ipsi maxime debent habere sacramentum confirmationis.
[III.q.35.a.4.arg.3] Further, the word "God" is predicated in common of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is Mother of God it seems to follow that she was the Mother of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which cannot be allowed. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be called Mother of God.
[III.q.35.a.4.sc] In the chapters of Cyril, approved in the Council of Ephesus (P. 1, Cap. xxvi), we read: "If anyone confess not that the Emmanuel is truly God, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, since she begot of her flesh the Word of God made flesh, let him be anathema."
[III.q.35.a.4.sc] Sed contra, apostoli receperunt potestatem ordinis ante ascensionem, Joan., xx, 22, ubi dictum est eis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum. Sed confirmati sunt post ascensionem per adventum Spiritus sancti. Ergo ordo non præsupponit confirmationem.
[III.q.35.a.4.co] As stated above (Question 16, Article 1), every word that signifies a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of that nature. Now, since the union of Incarnation took place in the hypostasis, as above stated (2, 3), it is manifest that this word "God" can stand for the hypostasis, having a human and a Divine nature. Therefore whatever belongs to the Divine and to the human nature can be attributed to that Person: both when a word is employed to stand for it, signifying the Divine Nature, and when a word is used signifying the human nature. Now, conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in respect of that nature in which it is conceived and born. Since, therefore, the human nature was taken by the Divine Person in the very beginning of the conception, as stated above (Question 33, Article 3), it follows that it can be truly said that God was conceived and born of the Virgin. Now from this is a woman called a man's mother, that she conceived him and gave birth to him. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly called the Mother of God. For the only way in which it could be denied that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God would be either if the humanity were first subject to conception and birth, before this man were the Son of God, as Photinus said; or if the humanity were not assumed unto unity of the Person or hypostasis of the Word of God, as Nestorius maintained. But both of these are erroneous. Therefore it is heretical to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.
[III.q.35.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod ad susceptionem ordinis præexigitur aliquid de necessitate sacramenti, et aliquid quasi de congruitate. De necessitate enim sacramenti exigitur quod ille qui accedit ad ordines, sit ordinis susceptivus, quod competit ei per baptismum; et ideo character baptismalis præsupponitur de necessitate sacramenti, ita quod sine eo sacramentum ordinis conferri non potest. Sed de congruitate requiritur omnis perfectio per quam aliquis reddatur idoneus ad executionem ordinis; et unum de istis est ut sit confirmatus. Et ideo de congruitate character ordinis characterrem confirmationis præsupponit, et non de necessitate.
[III.q.35.a.4.ad.1] This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by saying that, although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it expressly said in Scripture that "Jesus Christ is true God," as may be seen 1 John 5:20, and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of Jesus Christ," which is clearly expressed Matthew 1:18. Therefore, from the words of Scripture it follows of necessity that she is the Mother of God.
Again, it is written (Romans 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews "according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." But He is not of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He who is "above all things, God blessed for ever," is truly born of the Blessed Virgin as of His Mother.
[III.q.35.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod non est similis habitudo hic medii ad ultimum, et primi ad medium, quia per characterem baptismalem fit homo susceptivus sacramenti confirmationis; non autem per characterem confirmationis fit homo susceptivus sacramenti ordinis. Et ideo non est similis ratio.
[III.q.35.a.4.ad.2] This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter against Nestorius [Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii, answers it thus: "Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are considered as one being: and if anyone wish to say that the mother of the flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For the Word of God was born of the substance of God the Father: but because He took flesh, we must of necessity confess that in the flesh He was born of a woman." Consequently we must say that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the divine and the human nature.
[III.q.35.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod illa ratio procedit de idoneitate quantum ad congruitatem.
[III.q.35.a.4.ad.3] Although the name "God" is common to the three Persons, yet sometimes it stands for the Person of the Father alone, sometimes only for the Person of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, as stated above (16, 1; I, 39, 4). So that when we say, "The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God," this word "God" stands only for the incarnate Person of the Son.
Article 6
[III.q.35.a.6.arg.1] It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents, according to Genesis 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulgate: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Genesis 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.
[III.q.35.a.6.arg.2] Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Isaiah 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.
[III.q.35.a.6.arg.3] Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
[III.q.35.a.6.sc] Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."
[III.q.35.a.6.co] The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Isaiah 35:1-2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."
[III.q.35.a.6.ad.1] The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.
[III.q.35.a.6.ad.2] As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.
[III.q.35.a.6.ad.3] We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
Article 7
[III.q.35.a.7.arg.1] It would seem that Christ should not have been born in Bethlehem. For it is written (Isaiah 2:3): "The law shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem." But Christ is truly the Word of God. Therefore He should have come into the world at Jerusalem.
[III.q.35.a.7.arg.2] Further, it is said (Matthew 2:23) that it is written of Christ that "He shall be called a Nazarene"; which is taken from Isaiah 11:1: "A flower shall rise up out of his root"; for "Nazareth" is interpreted "a flower." But a man is named especially from the place of his birth. Therefore it seems that He should have been born in Nazareth, where also He was conceived and brought up.
[III.q.35.a.7.arg.3] Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that He might make known the true faith. according to John 18:37: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." But this would have been easier if He had been born in the city of Rome, which at that time ruled the world; whence Paul, writing to the Romans (1:8) says: "Your faith is spoken of in the whole world." Therefore it seems that He should not have been born in Bethlehem.
[III.q.35.a.7.sc] It is written (Micah 5:2): "And thou, Bethlehem, Ephrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be the ruler in Israel."
[III.q.35.a.7.co] Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for two reasons. First, because "He was made . . . of the seed of David according to the flesh," as it is written (Romans 1:3); to whom also was a special promise made concerning Christ; according to 2 Samuel 23:1: "The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said." Therefore He willed to be born at Bethlehem, where David was born, in order that by the very birthplace the promise made to David might be shown to be fulfilled. The Evangelist points this out by saying: "Because He was of the house and of the family of David." Secondly, because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.): "Bethlehem is interpreted 'the house of bread.' It is Christ Himself who said, 'I am the living Bread which came down from heaven.'"
[III.q.35.a.7.ad.1] As David was born in Bethlehem, so also did he choose Jerusalem to set up his throne there, and to build there the Temple of God, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a priestly city. Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were "consummated" principally in His Passion. Therefore it was becoming that He should choose Bethlehem for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for the scene of His Passion.
At the same time, too, He put to silence the vain boasting of men who take pride in being born in great cities, where also they desire especially to receive honor. Christ, on the contrary, willed to be born in a mean city, and to suffer reproach in a great city.
[III.q.35.a.7.ad.2] Christ wished "to flower" by His holy life, not in His carnal birth. Therefore He wished to be fostered and brought up at Nazareth. But He wished to be born at Bethlehem away from home; because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.), through the human nature which He had taken, He was born, as it were, in a foreign place--foreign not to His power, but to His Nature. And, again, as Bede says on Luke 2:7: "In order that He who found no room at the inn might prepare many mansions for us in His Father's house."
[III.q.35.a.7.ad.3] According to a sermon in the Council of Ephesus [P. iii, cap. ix]: "If He had chosen the great city of Rome, the change in the world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens. If He had been the son of the Emperor, His benefits would have been attributed to the latter's power. But that we might acknowledge the work of God in the transformation of the whole earth, He chose a poor mother and a birthplace poorer still."
"But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound the strong" (1 Corinthians 1:27). And therefore, in order the more to show His power, He set up the head of His Church in Rome itself, which was the head of the world, in sign of His complete victory, in order that from that city the faith might spread throughout the world; according to Isaiah 26:5-6: "The high city He shall lay low . . . the feet of the poor," i.e. of Christ, "shall tread it down; the steps of the needy," i.e. of the apostles Peter and Paul.
Article 8
[III.q.35.a.8.arg.1] It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting time. Because Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But He was born at a time of subjection--namely, when the whole world, as it were, tributary to Augustus, was being enrolled, at his command as Luke relates (2:1). Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a fitting time.
[III.q.35.a.8.arg.2] Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were not made to the Gentiles; according to Romans 9:4: "To whom belong . . . the promises." But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as appears from Matthew 2:1: "When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod." Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.
[III.q.35.a.8.arg.3] Further, the time of Christ's presence on earth is compared to the day, because He is the "Light of the world"; wherefore He says Himself (John 9:4): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day." But in summer the days are longer than in winter. Therefore, since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days before the Kalends of January, it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.
[III.q.35.a.8.sc] It is written (Galatians 4:4): "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law."
[III.q.35.a.8.co] There is this difference between Christ and other men, that, whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time, Christ, as Lord and Maker of all time, chose a time in which to be born, just as He chose a mother and a birthplace. And since "what is of God is well ordered" and becomingly arranged, it follows that Christ was born at a most fitting time.
[III.q.35.a.8.ad.1] Christ came in order to bring us back from a state of bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our mortal nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super Luc. ii, 4,5), "He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly after His birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar's census, and thus submit Himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty."
Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler, peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the birth of Christ, for "He is our peace, who hath made both one," as it is written (Ephesians 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Isaiah 2:4: "If we search the page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole world there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of Augustus Caesar: but when our Lord was born, all war ceased"; according to Isaiah 2:4: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation."
Again, it was fitting that Christ should be born while the world was governed by one ruler, because "He came to gather His own [Vulgate: 'the children of God'] together in one" (John 11:52), that there might be "one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16).
[III.q.35.a.8.ad.2] Christ wished to be born during the reign of a foreigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Genesis 49:10): "The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till He come that is to be sent." Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [Opus Imperf., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom), as long as the Jewish "people was governed by Jewish kings, however wicked, prophets were sent for their healing. But now that the Law of God is under the power of a wicked king, Christ is born; because a grave and hopeless disease demanded a more skilful physician."
[III.q.35.a.8.ad.3] As says the author of the book De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., "Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to increase in length," so as to show that He came in order that man might come nearer to the Divine Light, according to Luke 1:79: "To enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death."
In like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that He might begin from then to suffer in body for us.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/tertia-pars/q035.json