Reply Obj. 3:  Some have held that this prohibition of the apostles is not to be taken literally, but spiritually:  namely, that the prohibition of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the prohibition of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself:  which opinion they gathered from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a mystical sense.  Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from heathendom.  Hence others maintain that those foods were forbidden literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in order to prevent gluttony.  Thus Jerome says on Ezech. 44:31 ("The priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"):  “He condemns those priests who from gluttony did not keep these precepts.”

But since certain foods are more delicate than these and more conducive to gluttony, there seems no reason why these should have been forbidden more than the others.

We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side.  Because blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols.  Hence these things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together.  But as time went on, with the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that “not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man” (Matt. 15:11); and that “nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim. 4:4).  With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful. ________________________

QUESTION 104

OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the judicial precepts:  and first of all we shall consider them in general; in the second place we shall consider their reasons.  Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: 

(1) What is meant by the judicial precepts?

(2) Whether they are figurative?

(3) Their duration;

(4) Their division.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 104, Art. 1]

Whether the Judicial Precepts Were Those Which Directed Man in
Relation to His Neighbor?

Objection 1:  It would seem that the judicial precepts were not those which directed man in his relations to his neighbor.  For judicial precepts take their name from judgment. But there are many things that direct man as to his neighbor, which are not subordinate to judgment.  Therefore the judicial precepts were not those which directed man in his relations to his neighbor.