FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 1]

Whether the Flesh of Christ Was Derived from Adam?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from

Adam. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:47): "The first man was of the

earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly." Now, the

first man is Adam: and the second man is Christ. Therefore Christ is

not derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him.

Obj. 2: Further, the conception of Christ should have been most

miraculous. But it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the

slime of the earth, than from human matter derived from Adam. It

seems therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from Adam.

Therefore the body of Christ should not have been formed from the

mass of the human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter.

Obj. 3: Further, by "one man sin entered into this world," i.e. by

Adam, because in him all nations sinned originally, as is clear from

Rom. 5:12. But if Christ's body was derived from Adam, He would have

been in Adam originally when he sinned: therefore he would have

contracted original sin; which is unbecoming in His purity. Therefore

the body of Christ was not formed of matter derived from Adam.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 2:16): "Nowhere doth

He"--that is, the Son of God--"take hold of the angels: but of the

seed of Abraham He taketh hold." But the seed of Abraham was derived

from Adam. Therefore Christ's body was formed of matter derived from

Adam.

_I answer that,_ Christ assumed human nature in order to cleanse it

of corruption. But human nature did not need to be cleansed save in

as far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was

descended from Adam. Therefore it was becoming that He should assume

flesh of matter derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be

healed by the assumption.

Reply Obj. 1: The second man, i.e. Christ, is said to be of heaven,

not indeed as to the matter from which His body was formed, but

either as to the virtue whereby it was formed; or even as to His very

Godhead. But as to matter, Christ's body was earthly, as Adam's body

was.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 29, A. 1, ad 2) the mystery of

Christ's Incarnation is miraculous, not as ordained to strengthen

faith, but as an article of faith. And therefore in the mystery of

the Incarnation we do not seek that which is most miraculous, as in

those miracles that are wrought for the confirmation of faith, but

what is most becoming to Divine wisdom, and most expedient to the

salvation of man, since this is what we seek in all matters of faith.

It may also be said that in the mystery of the Incarnation the

miracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception, but

rather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth; inasmuch

as a virgin conceived and gave birth to God.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 15, A. 1, ad 2), Christ's body was

in Adam in respect of a bodily substance--that is to say, that the

corporeal matter of Christ's body was derived from Adam: but it was

not there by reason of seminal virtue, because it was not conceived

from the seed of man. Thus it did not contract original sin, as

others who are descended from Adam by man's seed.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 212 / 654 题