Tertia Pars
Lecture 42: Christ's Assumption of Bodily Defects and Natural Necessity

Transcript
================================================================================

So, we'll go back here to the division here. We'll go back to the premium there at the beginning of question 7, right? After showing what Christ has taken on, a human body and a human soul, right? Then he considers about the co-assumptis, right? Taken on with, so to speak, right? By the Son of God and human nature, huh? And then the division into two. And first, about those things which belong to perfection, right? Secondly, about those things which belong to what? Defect. So, he took on with the human body and human soul certain perfections of grace and what? Knowledge and power. He just completed about power in this question here. That three-fold division, right? And now he's going to take on the what? Defects that he took on, right? But just look at the premium there before we take a little break here. Then, one ought to consider about the defects which Christ took on human nature. And first, about the defects of the body. That, of course, you'd all have in mind, right? But secondly, about the defects of the soul. It was shocking. He should have that as well as the body, huh? Well, yeah. It was at one time, isn't it? I noticed he's got ten articles in that question 15 about the defects of the soul. And only four here about the body. So, that's a shocking, shocking revelation, yeah. Christ in 14 and 15 are the defects. I'm saying about this guy, he's really thorough. I was reading Christian chapter 25 with the third book of the Summa Contra Gentiles this morning, right? And the way Thomas divides this third book, it's about Christ as the end, huh? And so, he takes up, first of all, Christ as the end of all things. I mean, God as the end of all things, right? And then, his providence, right? Over all things. And then, his special providence over us, right? But that first part, up until about chapter 24, is showing that God as the end of all things. And then, chapter 25, I was starting to read this morning, is talking about how he's the end of all understanding features, right? So, I know what this class is for, and I know what my classes are for, and I know what my ballpoint pen is for, and my knife and my fork and my spoon are for. What am I for? You know? And, of course, you find out that it's understanding God, right? But Thomas has ten arguments there, right? So, I was thinking, gee, how is he going to show us by ten different arguments? It's beautiful what he does, you know? But, you know, when I come back to, from the first part before that, you know, when Thomas explains, what way God is in the universe? Well, it's not that God is in some way achieved by the universe. It's not that he gets anything from the universe, right? What sense is he in the universe, huh? Well, it's that everything else is trying to be like him, so far as it can, right? And you have to admire those old pagans there, Plato and Aristotle, because they both say when they're talking about reproduction in the animals and in the plants, for that matter, that they're trying to be like God. To be as much like God as they can. Well, they can't be eternal or immortal like God is, as individuals, but they can get a kind of immortality, a kind of eternity by reproducing their kind, right? And that's really beautiful that Plato and Aristotle saw that. And Thomas brings that out, right? That when we pursue anything that's good, it's good because in some way it's like God, it's goodness itself. So that we're ultimately pursuing what? God. And so you come back, you know, to those two reasons that Shakespeare gives, you're using our reason. One, that it's God-like, right? And therefore we become like God in using our reason. But then, the other reason that, sure, he who made us with such large discourse gave us not his capability and got a reason to fuss on us and use. So God gave us reason to use, right? But now they're too kind of a good time together, right? Because he wants us to use our reason so we might be like what? Him, right? And Thomas, you know, in one of these arguments for the understanding God that is being the end, right, of man, he's saying, well, you're like God in having understanding or reason, huh? Like Shakespeare says, it's God-like, right? But he says you're even more like him when you actually understand something. Because God actually understands, you know, boy. And you're most of all like him when you understand God in some way, huh? Because God understands everything he understands by understanding himself. So you can see, you know, how that's the end, right? To be as much like God as possible. And we're in some way like God with the ability to understand. We're more like him when he actually understands. And most of all, when he actually understands him. Well, we're very much, you know, not very much, as much as we can be, right? Like him, huh? Beautiful. I was thinking of Thomas this morning and saying, well, gee, he sees God as he is now, right? I'm not telling you about this, Thomas, I said. At least pray for me that I get there. But Thomas has, you know, another argument there that our end is what we most love and desire and delight in. This is when a man knows something about God, he enjoys this and wants it more than all this other knowledge of other things, right? So this must be the end. And he's saying, well, Aristotle, you know, in the Nicomachian Ethics, he's talking about how no man can live without pleasure and so on. But men who have never tasted the higher pleasures, right, they often go to excess in the lower pleasures. And, you know, a lot of times you see even with these intermediary pleasures like the pleasures of good music, right? This crazy stuff people listen to now, it's not really music, I don't know what it is. But they can't appreciate those higher things. So you wonder with that particular argument of Thomas, you know, the man who has no experience of thinking about God would not strike him, right? You know, he's often in the newest computer thing or whatever he is, right? But it counts to give it, Thomas shows, he understood, you know, saying, you know, to his present, what is God? You know, from the very beginning he was thinking about this and he desired to think about this more than anything else. But even if you're not too good a person, you get exposed to thinking about God, you say, hey, this is really interesting, you know? And you realize this must be the, what, the end or goal, right, of our knowledge because you enjoy thinking about God more than thinking about anything else. Then we're not to consider about the defects which Christ took on in his human nature, body and in his soul. And first about the defects of the body, secondly about the defects of the soul. About the first, four things are asked. First, in general, whether the Son of God ought to take on, in human nature, defects of the body. Second, whether he took on the necessity of being subject to these, what, defects. Third, whether he contracted these defects. And fourth, whether he took on, what, all defects of this, what, kind in his body. I think he's more radical to say that, I think. His passions were disordered and other things. What do you mean by that? To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that the Son of God ought not to take on human nature with defects of the body. For just as the soul is united to the Word of God personally, so also the body. But the soul of Christ had every kind of perfection, both as regards grace and as regards, what, knowledge, about which has been spoken above. Therefore, the body ought to be, in all ways, what, imperfect, having no defect in itself. Haven't you read about, in the early church, there wasn't a problem, if a priest, a man had some defect in the body, he couldn't be ordained? Yeah. I don't know what defects it was exactly. You still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you still can't, you moreover, the soul of Christ, saw the word of God, in that vision, or by that vision, by which the blessed see God, saw him as he is, face to face, and thus the soul of Christ was, what, blessed, but from the, the attitude or blessedness of the soul, the body is glorified, for Augustine says in the epistle to Dios Corus, so powerful, huh, by nature did God make the soul, that from its most full beatitude, there flows over into the lower nature, which is the body, not the beatitude, which is private to the one, what, enjoying and understanding God, but the fullness of hell, and the vigor of incorruption, the body of Christ, therefore, was incorruptible, and without a defect, huh, so Christ must have, got, prevented, huh, the overflow from the, so, he had these defects, more of her pain, so on, follows upon guilt, but in Christ there was no guilt, according to that of the first epistle of Peter, chapter 2, who did not do what? Sin, doesn't make sin, doesn't make sin, doesn't make sin, doesn't make sin, doesn't make sin, therefore neither would there be, what, body defects, which are, you know, punishments, punishments, punishments, punishments, therefore, they ought not to have been in him, right, therefore, body defects, which are punishments, should not be in him, moreover, no one who is wise, takes on that which impedes him from his own end, but through defects, body defects of this sort, in many ways, would seem to be impeded the end of the incarnation, first, because, because an account of these infirmities, men are impeded from knowledge of him, according to that of Isaiah chapter 53, we, we, what, desired him, was despised in the last of men, a man of pain, and knowing what infirmity, and as it were, hidden was his face, and despised, once you didn't regard him as anyone, you're always puzzled by that, what, the, what, uh, what, uh, Moses helped in the, in the, uh, snake life, serpent, yeah, you know, you know, you know, serpents are not very, very nice things, you know, and so he's, he despised, right, he's compared to that, it says. Secondly, because the desire of the Holy Fathers does not seem to be, what, fulfilled, whose person has said, rise up, rise up, rise up, take on what? Strength, the arm of the Lord, and some as I supplied to the word. Third, because more suitably, to, what, strength, then, to infirmity, but it seemed that the power of the devil can be, what, overcome, and human infirmity can be healed. Therefore, it does not seem suitable that the Son of God takes on human nature with bodily infirmities, or bodily, what, defects, huh? That's in some ways the most interesting objection, huh? But against this is what is said in Hebrews chapter 2. In that in which he suffered and was tempted, he is able to aid those, right, who are, what, tempted, huh? Whence, David says, I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, whence comes, what, my help. Therefore, it is suitable that the Son of God would take on flesh subject to human infirmities, that in it he could suffer and be tempted, and thus render aid to us. Well, what's Thomas going to do with this? I answer it should be said that it was suitable that a body taken on by the Son of God be subject to human infirmities and defects, and especially an account of these three pieces. First, because for this the Son of God took on human flesh and came into the world, that he might satisfy for the sin of the human race. Now, one person satisfies the sin of another, and he takes on the punishment due to sin in himself. Now, these defects, these body defects, like death, which is the greatest one, right, hunger and thirst, and, of course, you have the thirst of Christ there at the will. Yeah, but also the will, yeah. And the hunger after his 40 days of fasting, right? Yeah. And other defects of the sword are the punishment of what? Sin, which was brought into the world through heaven. According to that of Romans, chapter 5, verse 12. To one man, sin entered into the world, and through sin came death. Once it is suitable, as you encourage the very end or purpose of the incarnation, that these punishments, he take on them, these penalties in our flesh, that he take them on. In place of what? According to that of Isaiah, chapter 53. Truly he, what? For... I think this is, yeah, you know, Francis often takes things like Isaiah's there, those meditations on the passion of our work. So, that's the first reason Thomas gives, and maybe it's significant he gives that as the first reason, so they're very clear. Secondly, on account of what? Instruction, you might say, in the faith of the Incarnation. Because human nature was not otherwise known to man, except insofar as it is, what, subject to these body defects. We have no experience of Adam before us at all, right? And without these defects, if without these defects, the Son of God took on human nature, he would seem to not have been a, what, true man, nor to have had true flesh, but a fantastic or imaginative one, as the Manicheans say. And therefore, as is said in Philippians 2, he emptied himself, right, taking on the form of a servant or a slave, right, being made in the likeness of men, and found and have it as men. Whence Thomas, through the sight of the wounds, was called back to faith, as is said in John 20. It's interesting, as soon as in the modern world, they kind of take this down to the other extreme, where it's like, well, they won't believe he's a man unless he has the basal defects. Yeah, yeah. Really? Because he racks up a hole. What's in it? Unless he racks up a whole series of sins, you know. It's interesting, the order of these reasons, huh? And third, on account of the example of patience, which he showed to us, tolerating strongly these passions and human defects, right? Whence it is said in Hebrews 12, 3, he sustained from sinners against himself contradiction, that we might not grow tired, right? Failing in our, what? Souls. In that prayer, Thomas, after communion there, where he talks about eliminating his vices, right? And then the virtues, well, of course, obviously charity is a virtue he mentioned in particular, but humility, obedience, and what? Patience, yeah. Because the importance of those virtues, huh? In particular, right? But this is one of the virtues signaled out here, right? It's an example of patience, huh? But also humility and obedience, huh? And charity, huh? Right? Do you want to say something about the order? Well, it seems to me that the first one is perhaps the most, what? Important. The most necessary, right? It says both the second and the third are in terms of the virtues, huh? But the second one is in terms of faith, which is kind of the beginning, right? Okay, the virtues, huh? So you have to have faith that he did become a man. And this is an aid to faith. Unless you have that faith that he did become a man, then all this suffering would not have been real, right? With a fantastic redemption. Yeah, right. So actually in the second and third are both aids. Yeah. The virtue, one of the virtues of faith. Yeah, yeah. Now back to the second of the objections, huh? How is the soul more perfect than the body, right? Why did the soul escape, you know? We haven't come to a question of the effects of the soul yet, but anyway. To first it should be said that satisfaction for the sin of another has, as it were, as if for its matter, the punishments, right, which someone undergoes for the sin of what? Another, right? But for its beginning, it has the habit of the soul from which one is inclined to what? Willing to what? To satisfy for another. And from which the satisfaction is efficacy, right? For the satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity, right? As it said below, right? I'd give my body up to be burnt and so on, right? I have no charity. Deeply. And therefore, it is necessary that the soul of Christ be perfect as regards the habit of the sciences and the virtues. That he might have the, what? Ability to satisfy him. And that his body would be subject to infirmities so that the matter of satisfaction would not be, what? Lacking. It's very solid. Reply that he has there, right? It's in terms of the first reason given in the body, right? In other words, for him to really satisfy for our sins, he has to take on, what? As matter of satisfaction, the bodily defects that Adam incurred because of his sin, right? That we inherit from our father Adam. But in order for that matter to be efficacious in undergoing those things, it had to proceed from, what? Perfection of his will, right? And in front of his, what? Love, right? The rest, huh? Great love in this, hath no man, and so on. So, that's beautiful how he does that, huh? And corresponds to the first, what? Reason given. Because if he didn't have that perfection of charity in his soul, then his suffering would not be, what? To be not satisfactory. Efficacious. Smart guy, this guy, dude. Just call me Brother Thomas, by the way. You know when I touched that? What's that? Somebody, I had two guys that corresponded with me, right? And one guy sent me an email, and instead of addressing it to Dr. Berkis or something like that, he said Brother Thomas. And then, the same day, he said, if he missed that, he said, another one, and apologizing for calling me Brother Thomas. But it was a compliment. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Kind of funny, though, I think, you know. But, the second objection is saying, what? If he had this perfection of the soul, even of the beauty of vision, right? Then, that should overflow into the soul, right? Okay? I mean, into the body, okay? Thomas says, to the second, it should be said. That, according to the natural relation, which is between the soul and the body, from the glory of the soul, there flows over glory to the body, right? But this natural relation in Christ was subject to the, what? The will of his divinity, his divine will, from which it was done, or made, that the beatitude might remain in the soul, and not be derived from the body. It's like a impeding event, right? But the flesh suffered what are suitable to a, what? Undergoing nature. According to that, according to what Damascene says, right? That it was pleasing to his divine will to admit his flesh to, what? Suffer and to undergo the things which... That's proper to it, huh? Kind of like the uterus, too. Because the species still acts and undergoes what's proper to the accidents. What's proper to the wind and the soul? He's saying here it is natural for the glory of the soul to flow into the body because of the union, right? So by his divine will he has to prevent this, right? And of course, in a way, in the Transfiguration, right, it allows the glory of the soul to flow into his body, right? Temporarily, huh? Oh, no, stop it. Yeah. Or at least a little bit. Because otherwise they'd have been killed. I think you see something also, you know, in his appearances after the resurrection, it doesn't always let the glory of his soul flow through the body, right? Because it would be too bright for him. Very amazing. We never thought he was a girl. He never was a girl. Early interpretation of that area recently, I don't know why he didn't recognize him. It actually was the fact because of the glory of the mind. But you could take it in that sense, too. But there's probably some, you know, he's sort of hiding, but there's a sense that he's not quite just the ordinary. No, but the count doesn't speak as if, like when Moses came down from the hill right there, you know, they had to put a veil over him, you know, he'd have to put a veil over his head or something to practice it. I think one thing that he could only show her. The hand, yeah. At first, more the body. Because if she saw the rest of his whole body, it would have been too bright, too much work. Yeah, I was reading that passage in here one time. The hand. Now, the third one, but guilt is what? I mean, punishment is the consequence of guilt, right? There's no guilt in Christ, huh? To the third, it should be said that punishment always falls upon guilt. Actual or what? Original. No, but sometimes of the one who is punished, sometimes of another for whom the one who undergoes satisfies, huh? And as it happens in Christ, according to that of Isaiah 53, he was wounded for our iniquities. He was what? Poken. Poken for our, what? Scalor. Now, the fourth objection is saying this impeded the end of the thing, because they wouldn't know him, right? He was so miserable-looking, right? Because of power there, apparently. I think I've seen him talk about this before, right? He wants to overcome the devil by justice rather than by what? Power, yeah. To the fourth, it should be said that the infirmity taken on by Christ does not impede the Incarnation, but most of all, what promotes it, as has been said. And I think that's referring back to the three arguments or three reasons given in the body article. And although through these infirmenties is hidden his divinity, nevertheless, there's made known his humanity, which is a road, right, to arriving at his divinity, right? According to that in Romans chapter 5, we have access to God, to Jesus Christ. That's very much in Quarthedon's explanation of, I am the way, the truth, and the life, right? The pseudo-patriots here. Now, the ancient fathers, this is the other part of the objection, desired in Christ not bodily strength, but what? Strength, yeah. To which he would overcome the devil and heal, what? Human infirmity, yeah. But a lot of times, Thomas will talk about the fact that the devil, in instigating his death, right, is what? Violating justice, right? And therefore, he loses his right to hold us prisoner. And the second article, Will there be Christ for necessity, what? Will there be Christ for necessity, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think was subject to these defects of the body. The second one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ was not from necessity subject to these defects. Now this is strange. Thomas should be taken. He takes the opposite side of the way he begins, right? Now he's going to be taking the other side. That he, of necessity, was subject to these things? For it is said in Isaiah chapter 53, he was offered up because he, what? Wished. And he's speaking about his being offered up to what is his passion. But the will is opposed to necessity. Therefore, Christ was not from necessity subject to the defects of the body. Morbid Damascene says in the third book, nothing, what? Coerced in Christ should be considered, huh? But all voluntary. What is voluntary is not necessary. And therefore, defects of this sort were not from necessity in Christ. Moreover, necessity is induced, yeah, from someone more powerful. But no creature is more powerful than the soul of Christ, to which it pertains to conserve one's own body. Therefore, these defects or infirmities were not in Christ from necessity, huh? Now, don't stop now because you might get the wrong answer. But against this is what the Apostle says, Romans 8. God sent his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin. But the condition of the flesh of sin is that it has necessity of dying, right? And of sustaining, undergoing, other, what? Passions of this sort. Therefore, such necessity of sustaining these defects was in the flesh of, what? Christ. It seems to be saying that he took on a, what? Mortal flesh, right? Flesh subject to, what? Hunger and thirst and ultimately, what? Death, so, couldn't avoid it. Now, fortunately, he's studied the word necessity with his master Aristotle, that old pagan. The answer should be said, the two-fold is necessity. One is of, what? Coaxial force, huh? Which comes about from an extrinsic, what? Agent, huh? And this necessity is contrary both to nature and to the will, both of whom are an intrinsic, what? Beginning with source. But another is the natural necessity, which follows upon natural, what? Beginnings. As example, form, right? As it is necessary that fire heat, huh? Due to its form, right? Or a matter, as it is necessary that a body be, a body that is composed from contraries, be, what? Dissolved, right? And the nature is, as Aristotle shows in the second book, natural hearing is both matter and, what? Form, right? So he takes those two. Yeah. Now, I was thinking about the commandments of love this morning. And he says, love your God from your whole heart and your whole soul and so on. And love your neighbor as yourself, right? But why isn't there a third commandment? Because you're supposed to love yourself, right? As well as God and your neighbor. And that's implied when you say, love your neighbor as yourself. So why isn't there a third commandment instead of just two? I mean, Christ says it's two. Why isn't there a commandment to love yourself? Why not? Yeah, it's natural necessity, right? But it's natural necessity. It's not that... Forrest. Yeah, forrest, right? You know? I've been forced to love myself. I naturally love myself, right? Which is Richard. That is I am I. Shakespeare says, right? The kind of part one is, do I really love myself? Do I do all these horrible things, right? I'm my worst enemy. I sin like that. So these are distinctions that Aristotle made, right? A different sense of necessity. The fifth book of wisdom is, first word taken up is beginning, right? Then cause, then element, then what? Nature, and then necessity. Fifth word. Now, according to this necessity, which follows upon matter, right? The body of Christ was subject to the necessity of death and of other defects of this sort, right? Because, as has been said, by the, what? Bene Placido, right? In the agreement of the divine will of Christ, he permit his flesh to do and to undergo the things that were, what? Yeah. And, but this necessity was caused from the, what? Principles of, what? Human flesh, right. If, however, we speak of the necessity of, what? Force, huh? Coaxio. According as it is, what? Repugnant to the bodily nature. Thus, also the body of Christ, according to the condition of its own nature, was subject to necessity of the nail, what? Piercing. And of the, the. Scourge. Striking, right, huh? According as such necessity is repugnant to the will, is manifest that in Christ, there was not a, what? A necessity of these defects, right? Neither with respect to the divine will, nor with respect to the human will, absolutely, insofar as it follows, what? Reason after deliberation. But only according to the natural movement of the will, insofar as it naturally flees death and thee. He says, not my will, but thine be done. That's his what? Deliberate. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Because you frame it to his natural will, and he says, not my will. But it is his deliberative will. That's what he said. So his divine will, or his human will, is ordered with divine will, and his natural motion will, it says, I mean, take away from it, everything was perfectly ordered, but it wasn't, there was no disorder. And the first objection, it should be said that Christ is said to be, what, offered because he willed so, both by his divine will, and by his deliberate human will. Although death was against the natural motion of the human will, as Dan has seen it says. Now, the second objection he says, has been answered about what we said in the, what, in the body, right? All things are voluntary, insofar as they agree with the divine will here, and the, what, deliberate. Now, what about the power of Christ's soul? To the third, it should be said that nothing was more, what, powerful than the soul of Christ, absolutely. But nothing prevents something from being, what, Powerful as regards this effect, as of the nail to the, what, piercing. And this, I say, according as the soul of Christ, is considered according to its own nature and what? Power. So is it necessary that the nail pierces in? Yeah, that's what he's saying here in the body of the article, right? If we speak of the necessity of force, according as is repugnant to the bodily nature, thus, again, the body of Christ, according to the, what, condition of its own nature, was subject to necessity of the nail piercing and of the scourge that was striking. I always had the thought that it seems like with the passion that Christ really was sort of preserving himself, too. I always wondered, does suffering, is what was done in his body even more than some ordinary man could have taken? Was he, as he was going through this, actually sort of preserving his body? He used to have life longer than a man would. Yeah. Some of the saints seem to say that. Do they? Yeah. Is that brief? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.