The Magi's Adoration and Gifts; the Circumcision of Christ and the Name Jesus (ST III, Q.36 a.8; Q.37 aa.1–2)

Orientation #

He begins “one more article here before we take our break” — the last article of the question on the manifestation of the Nativity — then after the break goes back to the proemium of the question (he says “twenty-seven”; the material is q. 37) to see where they stand, and starts the circumcision. He notes the baptism will come later, “starting thirty-eight,” when Christ is about thirty. The previous class treated the manifestation of Christ’s birth to shepherds, Magi and the just, and the star.

The class, in order #

1. Four objections against the Magi’s coming (“it seems that the magi did not suitably come”) #

The point: whether the Magi acted fittingly in coming to adore Christ.

1. Reverence is owed a king by his subjects; the Magi were not of the kingdom of the Jews; so coming to adore the King of the Jews was unfitting.
2. It is stupid to announce a foreign king while a king is reigning; Herod reigned in Judea; so they acted stupidly.
3. A celestial sign is more certain than a human one; led by the star, they nevertheless asked men “where is born the king of the Jews?” — so stupidly.
4. Gifts and adoration belong only to kings already ruling; they did not find Christ in royal dignity. Sed contra: Isaiah 60 — “the Gentiles walk in his light, and kings in the splendor of his origin”; those led by the divine light do not err.

Aside (the Stuarts): Bonnie Prince Charlie and the recipe for Drambuie; the Stuart monument on the left in St. Peter’s — “what do the English do when they come here and they see this?”; and the coming papal visit to England, speaking in the very room where Thomas More was condemned and at Oxford — “this is going to be Regensburg revisited.”

2. The body of the article: the Magi as first fruits of the Gentiles (“the magi were the first fruits of the Gentiles”) #

The Magi were the first fruits of the Gentiles believing in Christ, in whom appeared as in a certain presage both the faith and the devotion of the Gentiles coming from a distance to Christ. Since the belief and devotion of the Gentiles is without error by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so likewise credendum est that the Magi, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wisely showed reverence to Christ.

3. Replies 1 and 2: no king like this, and no fear of Herod (“they did not fear the present King”) #

• Reply 1 (Augustine, Sermon on the Epiphany): many kings of the Jews were born and died, and the Magi sought none of them to adore. Not a king such as they were accustomed to be — for men from so great a distance would not pay such honour to a foreigner, and to a king entirely outside their own kingdom — but such a one that by adoring him they would obtain the salvation which is according to God. Aside: “Talk to Augustine about his Latin someday.”
• Reply 2 (Augustine on Matthew): their announcing prefigures the constancy of the Gentiles confessing Christ unto death: “when they considered the future King, they did not fear the present King” — they had not yet seen Christ and were already prepared to die for him. He says this raises his own reverence for the Magi: they did not fear stepping on Herod’s toes.

4. Reply 3: why the star withdrew (“it hid itself or subtracted itself”) #

The star that led them to the very place could have led them to Bethlehem, but it withdrew until the Jews themselves gave testimony about the city — so that by a twofold testimony, as Leo the Pope says, they would seek with a more ardent faith him whom both the clarity of the star and the authority of the prophets manifested. They themselves announced the birth and asked the place: believing and seeking, signifying those who walk by faith and desire — “That’s beautiful. Seeking a good sermon there on the Epiphany.”

• Augustine’s image: the Jews, indicating the place of the Lord’s nativity, are like the builders of the ark of Noah — they provided others a means of escape and themselves perished in the flood; they heard, asked, and went away. They spoke and remained teachers, like milestones, “who show the way, but do not walk.”
• By a divine nutu (indication) the star’s sight was subtracted so that the Magi by human understanding went to Jerusalem, seeking the born king in the royal city — that the nativity might first be publicly announced in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2: “from Sion goes forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”), and that the effort of those coming from afar might condemn the laziness of the Jews who were near.
• Example for that last point: a visitor to a foreign place has read up on a famous site and the locals have never been there — and then you come to appreciate your own heritage. Aside: EWTN program on the cathedral in St. Paul being refurbished, and the plaque there to Pius XII from his visit as cardinal.

5. Reply 4: the three gifts (“they saw a man, and they knew a God”) #

Chrysostom on Matthew: had they sought an earthly king they would have been confounded, the labour of so great a journey undertaken without cause, and would neither have adored nor offered gifts. But since they sought a celestial king, though they saw nothing of royal excellence, content with the testimony of the star alone they adored — “for they saw a man, and they knew a God.” Gifts suited to Christ’s dignity:

• gold, as to a great king;
• frankincense, placed in sacrifice, as to God;
• myrrh, with which the bodies of the dead are embalmed — to one who would die for the salvation of all.

Gregory’s moral reading: gold signifies wisdom (we offer it in the sight of his wisdom); incense, the devotion of prayer, pleasing, redolens, offered with an odour of sweetness; myrrh, the mortification of the flesh, offered if the vices of the flesh are mortified through abstinence.

• His aside on gold/wisdom: Christ tells Pilate, “for this was I born, and for this I came into the world, that I might give testimony to the truth” — which ties up with wisdom, “the knowledge of the truth, as Aristotle said.”
• “Lots of meat in there.” Break.

6. After the break: where we are in the Third Part (“look at the big proemium there”) #

After treating the union of God and man and its consequences, it remains to consider what the incarnate Son of God did or underwent in the human nature united to himself. Fourfold: (1) his entry into the world; (2) the process of his life in this world; (3) his exit from this world; (4) his exaltation after this life. Under the entry, four: conception, nativity (just finished), circumcision, baptism.

• Present question (q. 37) asks four things: his circumcision; the imposition of the name; his offering in the temple; the purgation of his mother. Why the legal observances are taken up here: circumcision is a profession that the law is to be kept — Galatians 5, “I testify to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to the whole law” — so the other legal things observed about the boy Christ are asked at the same time.
• Aside: “the word articulus is well chosen — he articulates all these things.”

7. Objections against Christ’s circumcision (“it seems that Christ should not be circumcised”) #

1. When the truth comes the figure ceases; circumcision was commanded as a sign of the agreement about the seed to be born (Genesis 17); that agreement was completed in Christ’s birth; so circumcision ought at once to have ceased.
2. Every action of Christ is our instruction (John 13, “I have given you an example”); but we ought not to be circumcised (Galatians 5:2, “if you are circumcised, Christ profits you nothing”).
3. Circumcision is ordered to the remedy of original sin, which Christ did not contract. Sed contra: Luke 2, after eight days, that the boy might be circumcised.

8. Seven reasons why Christ was circumcised (“for many reasons Christ ought to be circumcised”) #

1. To show the truth of human flesh — against the Manichaeans, who said he had a fantastic, imaginary body; against Apollinaris, who said his body was consubstantial with his divinity; against Valentinus, who said his body was brought from heaven. He calls this “a pretty concrete demonstration.”
2. To approve the circumcision which God instituted long ago.
3. To prove himself of the race of Abraham, who took the command of circumcision as a sign of the faith he had. (He pauses over probaret — “that has a sense of proving it stronger.”)
4. To take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving him — “the filthy uncircumcised dog” (he recalls the phrase from David).
5. To commend to us the virtue of obedience by his example: circumcised on the eighth day, as the law commanded.
6. That coming in the likeness of the flesh of sin, he would not refuse the remedy by which the flesh of sin was accustomed to be cleansed.
7. That sustaining in himself the weight of the law, he would liberate others from it — Galatians 4, “God sent his Son, made under the law, that those under the law might be redeemed.”

He asks the class to recount the seven at the end of the article; the recap he gives aloud runs short of seven items, several being merged.

9. The three replies (“the truth of this figure was not fully fulfilled in the birth”) #

• To 1: circumcision, by removing the little skin (pellicula) in the member of generation, signifies the taking away of the old generation, from which oldness we are freed through Christ’s passion; so the truth of the figure was fulfilled not in his birth but in his passion, before which circumcision kept its power and status — hence fitting that Christ be circumcised before the passion as a son of Abraham, but not after.
• To 2: Christ underwent circumcision at the time when he was under the command of the law; his action is to be imitated in this, that we observe what belongs to our own time — “for every action and business there is a time and an opportunity” (Ecclesiastes). Origen: as we die with him dying and rise with him rising, so we are circumcised by a spiritual circumcision through Christ, and need no fleshly one — Colossians 2, “in whom we are circumcised by a circumcision not made by hand.”
• To 3: as Christ by his own will underwent our death, the effect of sin, having no sin, to free us and make us die spiritually to sin, so he received circumcision, a remedy of original sin, without having original sin — to free us from the yoke of the law and effect a spiritual circumcision in us, receiving the figure that he might fulfil the truth. “That’s subtle, that Thomas.”

10. a. 2: objections against the name Jesus (“it seems that unsuitably was a name placed upon Christ”) #

1. Evangelical truth ought to correspond to the prophets’ foreannouncing, and the prophets gave other names: Isaiah 7, Emmanuel; Isaiah 8, “Hasten to take the spoils, make haste to plunder” (Accelera spolia detrahe, festina praedari); Isaiah 9:6, Admirable, Counsellor, God the strong one, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace; Zechariah 6:12, “Behold a man, the Orient is his name.”
2. Isaiah 62: “there shall be called for you a new name” — but Jesus is not new, being borne by many in the Old Testament, as is clear from the genealogy in Luke 3.
3. The name Jesus signifies salvation (Matthew 1:21, “for he shall save his people from their sins”), but salvation was made not only in circumcision but in the praeputium — i.e. for the Gentiles (Romans 4); so it was unsuitably imposed at his circumcision. Sed contra: Luke 2, when the eight days were consummated, “his name was called Jesus.”

• Digression on Oriens: because of a translation problem it now often comes off as “branch”; the word carries the general sense of springing forth, so it can mean light or dawn, or the shoot. A student ties it to Zechariah in the New Testament — “Oriens ex alto,” the day-spring — and he agrees it is the same connection. He recalls Latin pullulatio, the tender shoots first coming up, used by Bonaventure: had the Jews cultivated faith in the one God of the Old Testament, it would have grown into the revelation of the Trinity, which is contained there in early form.
• Aside on impositio nominis: Monsignor Dionne’s phrase; in English we “put a name upon” something, as if the name is above — and to understand a word is to know what stands under it.

11. Body of a. 2: how names are imposed (“names ought to correspond to the properties of things”) #

Names ought to correspond to the properties of things — clear in names of genera and species, since as Metaphysics IV says, the ratio which the name signifies is a definition designating the thing’s own nature. Names of individual men are always imposed from some property of the one named:

• from time — names of saints given to those born on their day. Examples: the Spanish custom, at least as a second name; the priest in Mexico with a woman whose child was born on Circumcision Day and wanted to name him for it — “No, no — just call him Jesus.” And his own case: christened Hugo Duane, the pastor objecting that Duane is not a saint’s name.
• from relatives — the son given the father’s name; John the Baptist’s kin wished him called Zechariah, “because no one of your relatives is called by this name” (Luke 1).
• from some event — Joseph called his firstborn Manasseh, “God made me forget all my errors.”
• from some quality — he who first came from the womb was red and hairy, and was called Esau. Aside: he wonders what Thomas would think of the Indian way of naming from whatever moved by — “Sitting Bull” — “a reasonable way of naming things.”

But names imposed divinely always signify some gratuitous gift given divinely: Genesis 17:5, “you shall be called Abraham, because I will constitute you father of many nations”; Matthew 16, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Since to the man Christ this gift of grace was given, that by him all would be saved, suitably his name is called Jesus, savior — the angel announcing the name not only to the mother but also to Joseph, his future nourisher. Aside: “Thomas is a very solid man — the solidity of his teaching. Weighty.”

12. Replies of a. 2: the prophetic names, the old Jesuses, the eighth day (“in all those names, in some way it signified this name Jesus”) #

• To 1: all those names in some way signify the name Jesus, which signifies salvation. Emmanuel, “God with us,” designates the cause of salvation, the union of divine and human nature in the person of the Son of God. Exspolians designates from whom he saves us — the devil, whose spoils he takes away (Colossians 2, “despoiling the principalities and powers”; a student notes the English “spoiling”). Admirabilis designates the road and end of our salvation: by the wonderful counsel of divinity and power we are led to the inheritance of the future age, where there will be the perfect peace of the sons of God. Oriens refers, like the first, to the mystery of the Incarnation, as a light arises in darkness — tied to “those sitting in the shadow of death.” So all foretell the name Jesus without using it.
• To 2: those before Christ could bear this name for some reason, since they brought some particular and temporal salvation; but according to the notion of a spiritual and universal salvation it is proper to Christ alone, and in this sense is called new. Student exchange: whether Joshua is the same name as Jesus (he led them into the Holy Land), and whether Isaiah, Jesse and Joshua are forms of it — “not too sure about that.” His comparison: the Philosopher is a new name of Aristotle; Aristotle calls Homer the Poet.
• To 3: as Genesis 17 shows, Abraham received the imposition of the name and the command of circumcision together; hence among the Jews it was customary that names be given on the day of circumcision, as if before circumcision they did not have perfect being — just as now names are given to boys in baptism. Aside: nowadays the hospital wants the name for the records.
• He begins the gloss on Proverbs 4 (“I was the son of my father, tender and only begotten before my mother”), where Solomon calls himself only-begotten before his mother — and the class breaks off: “We’re finding the line, man. Time for it. We got to stop.”

His words #

• “presage” — his rendering of praesagium: the Magi, in whom appeared as in a certain presage the faith and devotion of the Gentiles.
• credendum est — “it should be believed,” of the Magi’s inspiration by the Holy Spirit.
• “milestones” — Augustine’s figure for the Jewish teachers who show the way but do not walk.
• nutu — “a divine indication,” by which the star’s sight was withdrawn.
• redolens — pleasing with an odour, of constant prayers offered to God.
• articulus — “the word is well chosen; he articulates all these things.”
• pellicula — “the piece of skin” removed in circumcision.
• praeputium — the foreskin; used by Paul for the Gentiles.
• probaret — “that he might approve”/“prove”; he notes it “has a sense of proving it stronger.”
• impositio nominis — “the placing upon of a name”; English “put a name upon something,” as if the name is above.
• Oriens — “the Orient,” the east, the dawn; also rendered “branch,” from the sense of springing forth.
• pullulatio — “the tender shoots of something that first comes up” (Bonaventure’s image for Old Testament faith growing into the Trinity).
• Exspolians — the despoiler; the prophetic name designating from whom we are saved.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 36, a. 8 (whether the Magi came suitably to adore Christ) — objections, sed contra, body, four replies.
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 37, proemium (with a look back to the proemium of the whole treatment of Christ’s acts and sufferings).
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 37, a. 1 (whether Christ should have been circumcised) — seven reasons and three replies.
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 37, a. 2 (the imposition of the name Jesus) — objections, body, three replies.

Mentioned (within those articles or by him)

• Augustine, Sermon on the Epiphany; Augustine on Matthew.
• Leo the Pope; Chrysostom on Matthew; Gregory; Origen.
• Isaiah 2; 7; 8; 9:6; 60; 62. Zechariah 6:12; “Oriens ex alto” (Luke 1, inferred). Genesis 17; Genesis (Manasseh; Esau). Luke 1; Luke 2; Luke 3. Matthew 1:21; Matthew 16. John 13. Romans 4. Galatians 4; Galatians 5:2. Colossians 2. Ecclesiastes 8:6. Proverbs 4 with the gloss.
• Aristotle, Metaphysics IV (the ratio a name signifies is a definition); Aristotle on truth; Aristotle calling Homer “the Poet.”
• Bonaventure on the Old Testament faith growing into the Trinity.
• Manichaeans, Apollinaris, Valentinus.

His questions #

• Why did the Magi have to ask, if they were being led by the star? The star withdrew so that the Jews would testify about the city, and by a twofold testimony — star and prophets — they would seek with more ardent faith.
• Why did they dare announce a new king in Herod’s kingdom? Their announcing prefigures the constancy of the Gentiles: considering the future King, they did not fear the present one.
• Why gifts and adoration to one not shining in royal dignity? Because they sought a celestial king: they saw a man and knew a God, and offered gold, frankincense and myrrh suited to king, God and one who would die.
• “What about the figure ceasing?” The figure of circumcision was fulfilled not in Christ’s birth but in his passion, so it kept its status until then.
• If every action of Christ is our instruction, ought we to be circumcised? No: he acted under the law of his own time; we are circumcised spiritually through Christ.
• Why be circumcised, if he had no original sin? As he underwent our death without sin, so he received the remedy of original sin without having it, to free us and effect spiritual circumcision in us.
• Did he get the seven reasons down? Given as a recap, but he runs them together and does not reach seven aloud.
• Why “Jesus” and not the names the prophets gave? All those names — Emmanuel, Exspolians, Admirabilis, Oriens — signify in some way what “Jesus,” savior, says: its cause, its author’s defeated enemy, its road and end, and the Incarnation.
• How can “Jesus” be a new name, when many bore it before? They bore it for a particular and temporal salvation; as naming a universal spiritual salvation it is proper to Christ, and so new — as “the Philosopher” is a new name of Aristotle.
• Are Isaiah, Jesse and Joshua forms of the name Jesus? Left open — “not too sure about that.”
• Why impose the name at the circumcision? Because Abraham received name and command of circumcision together, so names were given that day, as if before circumcision they had not perfect being — as names are now given at baptism.