Tertia Pars
Lecture 50: Christological Predication: 'God Was Made Man' and 'Man Was Made God'

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

Okay, now we get to some questions here about making, so on, Article 6, right? To the sixth one goes forward thus, it seems that this is false. God was made a, what? Man, huh? For since man signifies a substance, huh? Put man in the genus of substance, huh? To become a man is to come to be, what? Simply. Okay, now you've met this distinction between simply and secundum quid, right? So when I came to school today, did I come to be? Now you have to qualify, right? I didn't come to be simply, right? But when my parents generated me, right? Then I came to be, right? So I learned geometry I didn't come to be. I came to be geometry or something accidental, right? But when I grew to be 5'10", or whatever I grew to be, I didn't come to be, but I came to be 5'10", right? But man is a substance, huh? But this is false. God was made, what? Simply. And therefore, Thomas is arguing that, huh? And through all things were made, right? We must be God then, the word, huh? All things are made through him. Because everything else is made, huh? Therefore, this is false. God was made, what? Man. Moreover, to become a man is to be changed, huh? Now a lot of times that I'm saying, you know, what is change? Well, if you try to define change, I suppose you say change is becoming other, huh? Staying the same is not changing, right? It's becoming other, right? So, it seems to be, what? Saying that God changes, right? If he becomes a man. But God is not able to be the subject of change. And this is a text then that Thomas often quotes on, and gets through showing by reason, that God does not change. According to that of Malachi chapter 3, verse 6. I am the Lord, right? I the Lord, and I do not change. And there's one of the, what? Canonical epistles there, right? Not a shadow of change in him. Therefore, it seems that this is false. God was made a man, huh? See, you get into a lot of trouble with words, huh? Moreover, man, according as he is said of what? According as it is said of Christ, supposes the person of the Son of God. But this is false. God was made, what? Person of the Son of God. Therefore, this is false, that God was made, what? Man, huh? But against this is what is said in John 1, verse 14. The Word was made, what? Flesh. And of course, flesh there is standing for man, right? By, what? Snecdoche. I noticed Augustine there in the Cotinario said, part for the whole, you know? He doesn't give it a name, you know? And Plato, you know, in the Symposium, he speaks of giving the name of the part for the whole. Time to address the whole there. But he doesn't give it a name, right? I think those names like Snecdoche and Antonia Messiah came from the rhetoricians, I think, huh? But a lot of times, Thomas does pick up and use those words anyway, you know? But in Augustine and Plato, they just seem to say, well, this is a, you're speaking figuratively, you know? Part for the whole. Okay, but again, this is what is said in John 1, and as Athanasius says in the Epistle to Epictetus, the Word was made flesh, it's like, as if one were to say, that he was made a man, right? So that the divinity is not in place of the human soul and all those other heresies, right? Thomas says, Answer, it should be said, that each thing is said to be made that which newly begins to be said of it. But to be a man truly is said of God, as has been said, right? But nevertheless, so that it does not belong to God to be man from what? Eternity. But from time, huh? To the taking on of what? Human nature, right? And therefore, this is true that God was made man, but in diverse ways is understood by diverse persons, right? Just as this, God is man, as has been said above, huh? Now, is he going to talk about these in the reply to the objections, huh? But that's basically what he's saying, huh? If it's true, that's the order of the articles here, right? In other words, he showed that it was true to say that God is man in one of the previous articles, right? And now if he adds to that that he wasn't always man, then to bring out that this begins to be said of him, right, from time, right? From the wholeness of time. Then we say that he, what? Yeah. He became a man or was made a man, right? Now, to the first objection, this is what about coming to be simply, right? Now, Thomas is rightly subtle here, right? Rightly to the point. The first, therefore, it should be said that to become a man is to come to be simply in all those in which human nature begins to be in a suppositum, right? De novo creato. So my human nature began to be in my person will be created, right? And therefore, I came to be simply, right? But did the Son of God come to be? He already was, right? Before he became man. But God is said to be made man from this, that human nature began to be in the suppositum of the divine, what? Nature. Pre-existing from eternity. And therefore, God became man. Therefore, for God to become man is not for God to what? Yeah. Okay? Again, go back to my theoretical opinion, right? You've got a line here that always existed. And the end point of the line, therefore, existed. Okay? Now, if I bring another line into existence with its own end point, you can say the end of this line has begun to be when this line came into existence, right? Okay? But if instead of that, where the end point is coming to be when the line comes to be, right? What it gets to be, if that human nature is what? Drawn to the already existing person, right? Then does that point there begin to be? Simply? No, that point was already there. Okay? So that point did not begin to be, simply. You could say, it began to be the beginning of this line, right? Or the end point of this line, right? So that's to begin to be, what? They couldn't even quit. It did begin to be very, simply, is it? Just like when I heard geometry, I didn't begin to be. I began to be a geometry, right? I already was before I learned geometry, right? Okay. If I began to be when I learned geometry, then I began to be simply, right? When I learned geometry, right? If I didn't begin to be when I began to learn geometry, right? If I didn't begin to be simply when I learned geometry, I really began to be geometry. And so the Son of God didn't begin to be when he became a man, right? Right. But he began to be a man. So that was not beginning to be simply for him, was it? He's most unusual, huh? You know, when our Lord defines eternal life there in the 17th chapters of John, it's eternal life to know you, right? And him whom you have sent. Sometimes Thomas explains that in terms of what? Heaven, eternal life, consists in knowing God, but also the incarnate Word, right? So we're going to really enjoy. We've got to live with him again. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's going to be extremely interesting. That's one way of explaining, you know, going out and coming in, right? You'll find pasture, right? You go into the divine nature and you come out to the incarnate Word. That's what he'd like. Ezekiel refers to the book written inside and outside. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're going to do that, see? You go into the prima forest, to the tertia forest. We found pasture there in the prima forest, right? Now we're finding pasture here in the tertia forest, huh? Now the second objection, huh? You don't want to reply to this, right? To the second it should be said, that it has been said, Instead, becoming, right, implies, right, that something is what? Said newly of what? Another. Whence, whenever something is said newly of something, with a change in that of which it is said, then becoming is what? Is meaning change, yeah. And this belongs to all things which are what? Yeah. For something is not able to what? For whiteness, which is the name of a quality, right? Or magnitude, quantity, right? Cannot begin to what? Newly come to something, except to the fact that that thing is newly changed to whiteness or to what? Magnitude. And that's, you notice the word absolute there is taken as the opposite of what? Relative, right, huh? Okay. So sometimes Thomas takes absolute as opposed to secundum quid, right? But this here I think it's more absolute as opposed to what? Relative, right? The more common use of the word, what? Absolute, huh? I don't remember the text. I saw a text this morning. It was yesterday in Super Gentile. That's what Thomas says. Absolute veils unbicidere, right? So in some senses that's taken. I was looking at the text on the words necessary there, right? And I use the term absolute necessity, huh? I can say two is half of four. But when you say it's necessary to eat, well, you're going to live. But you don't necessarily eat. Some of you might starve to death, right? But two must be, right? Simply. But I think absolutely there is a sense of simplicity there. Do you need a college education unless you have a college education? Well, if you're going to, you know. Want to get a good job. Yeah. That's what they say, yeah. That's what they say, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you can avoid it, right, I guess? To be honest. But two can avoid being half of four, right? That's absolutely necessary. Right? Simple without qualification, right? Yeah. See? But some people starve to death, right? So it's necessary if you're going to go on living to eat, yeah? But see, here absolute doesn't mean simplicity there, but it's absolute as opposed to what? Yeah. But those things which are said relative are able to be newly said of something without its change. Just as a man is newly, what? Right side without his change. Through the motion of that which is my life. So I could be taller than my son and then become shorter than him. Through no change or fault of my own. But through his, what? Groove. Yeah. See? So I'm newly. I wasn't always shorter than him. Okay. Whence in such things is not necessary that everything that is said to, what? Come to be is, what? Changed, huh? Because this is able to happen through the change of, what? Another, right? And in this way, we say to God, in the Psalms, Lord, you are made a, what? Refuge for us, right? But to be a man belongs to God by reason of the, what? Union, which is a certain, what? Relation, huh? And therefore, to be a man is said newly of God without his change, huh? Through the change of, what? Human nature, right? Which is taken on by the divine person, right? And therefore, when it is said that God has made man, there is not to be understood any change on the side of God, but only on the side of, what? The nature. Very good times, huh? Very good. Your voice will be heard around the world, huh? Your bellow. So it's a bellow. Anyway, right? It says bellow will be heard around. Moreover a man, according as, objection again. Moreover a man, according as it is said of Christ, supposes the person of the Son of God. But this is false, that God was made, what? The person of the Son of God, huh? Therefore it is false, that God was made man. To the third, it should be said, that man supposes the person of the Son of God not nudem, naked, huh? But insofar as it subsists in, what? Human nature. And although this is false, that God was made the person of, what? The Son. Nevertheless, this is true, that God was made man. From this, that it was united to, what? Human nature. Very good times. You pass. Carry you off on our shoulders, huh? Tell the story, you know, of Cajetan, you know, who was making his defense on, I guess, at the end of defense, you know, you would invite anybody around, if you pass, you know, to have a beer at your expense or something, right? But he, this will be until he picked it on his shoulders and carried them off in their shoulders. And treated him, too, as a beer or something. So, we'll carry Thomas on our shoulders, huh? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Article 70, right? How about the reverse now, right? You can say God was made man. Can you say man was made God? That's a little more difficult, huh? Doesn't St. Paul speak of him as being predestined? We'll see what Thomas says. He's nervous, though, Thomas. To the seventh one goes forth thus. It seems that this is true. Man was made God, right? For he said in Romans 1, that before, right, he was promised to the prophets, huh, in the Holy Scriptures about his son, who was made to him from the seed of David according to the flesh. But Christ, according as his man, is from the seed of David according to the flesh. And therefore man is made, what? Moreover, Augustine says in the first book on the Trinity, such was the, what? But taking on the reception, or such, or such, or such. That he made God, what? Man, and man, what? God. But the reason of that taking on, this is true, that God was made man, therefore this is true, that man was made God. I know this is what, you know, Thomas says sometimes, God became man, so that man could become God. No, but that would be participatory. We'll see what Thomas says. You know, I've often thought, you know, that if you're going to, he teaches things right, you've got to give the guy the objections without the body, you know, and let him struggle with him for a while, you know, because it would take a long time to go through. And then the next day, he gives him the body, you know, and then he'll struggle to answer the objections, and then the third day, give him the... When I was giving them that text, you know, where the charity is friendship, on the course of love and friendship, I would just give him the objections, right? And no, they're too lazy to look up the text, so let's do it with the objections, you know, because it seems to indicate that he can't be friendship, right? And then he'll solve it. Like the students say, well, I wish he'd make up his mind. Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen says in the epistle to Celidonium that God was, what? Human Naptus, huh? Human, man, however, Deificatus, right? Or in whatever other way it should be named. But God, by that reason, for that reason, is said to be Human Naptus because he was made man. Therefore, man, for that reason, should be said, to be Deificatus, huh? Made God because he was made God. That's what the word means, Deificatus, right? And therefore, this is true that man was made God. Moreover, when it is said that God was made man, the subject of the making or the union is not God, but human nature, which this name man signifies. But that seems to be the subject of the making to which the making is attributed. Therefore, this is more true that man was made God than that God was made, what? Man. We can't make anything of God. We can make something of human nature. So, that's a pretty convincing argument. But wisely and slow, they stumble and run fast, huh? Let's not jump to any conclusions, huh? Because of these objections. But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. For we do not say that man was, what? Made God. God, but God, what? Was made human. But the same thing it is to become God and to be Daisy Carver, right? To make God. Therefore, this is false that man was, what? Made God, huh? Now, it's not interesting to see what Thomas does with this problem, huh? But this is one of those ones where he saw in his face and prayed God for enlightenment, huh? That's what they said he did, huh? Then he'd get up and say, ah! Then he'd come and start dictating him. I answer it should be said that this statement, man was made, what? God can be understood in three ways. In one way, that this participle, factus, made, determines, what? Absolutely. Either the subject or the predicate. And in this sense, it is false because neither that man of whom is said made nor God is made as will be said, what? Below. So that's articles eight and nine. And under this sense, this is false that God was made man. But under this sense, one does not ask here about these, what? Statements, okay? Okay. The other way can be understood that factus determines the, what? Composition. In this sense, that to say that man was made God, that is, it was made that man be God. And under this sense, both are true. That man was made God and God and God was made, what? Man. It's like saying it was brought about, huh? That God is man and man is God, right? Okay. But this is not the, what, proper sense of these, what, ways of speaking. Unless, perhaps, it be understood that man does not have, what, personal supposition, but simple, whatever that means. I take a little note here. Supposition is said to be simple when it's taken for primario per se significato. if you take this man and then you talk about the person and that person here is the son of God, not a human person. But hekomo, this man is not made God because this suppositum, right? He made the person of the son of God from eternity was God. Nevertheless, man, commonly speaking, right? was not always what? God. And a third way is properly understood according as this participle faktus, places coming to be about man in respect to God as the, what? Yeah. to be able to to be able to to be able to to be able to to be able to term, the limit of its making. And in this sense, that in Christ there is the same person and hypostasis and suppositum of God and man, right? This proposition is what? Because when it is said that man was made God, man has what? Supposition. But to be God is not verified of man by reason of human nature, but by reason of what? Suppositum. But that suppositum of a human nature, about which is verified God, is the same as the hypostasis, or person of the Son of God, who was always God, right? Whence it cannot be said that this man, right? That man, began to be God, or they began to be God, or they was made God. Because that person was always God. If, however, that other person or hypostasis, if there was another person and the hypostasis of God and of man, so that to be God was said of that man in a conversal, certain, what, conjunction of the supposita, or the personal dignity or affection or inhabitation, as historians say, then by a like reason it can be said that God, God, that man was made God, that is, joined to God, and that God was made man, that is joined to God. Or joined to man, rather. Yeah, if you're talking about man in general, you can't say that man became God, right? If you're talking about a man became God, can you say that? No, and why not that a man was made God? Well, it's that a man stands for the person, right? And the person is the son of God. So he couldn't be, he made God. Yeah. That's kind of a subtle thing, yeah. But don't we have that in the, when the God became that, for us, it's a quote from Augustine, but he explains the way that you can understand that, correct? There's other ways, but he's trying to be, pretty solid. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Seeing the three different ways you can understand it. But it's kind of understanding improperly the way of speaking, if you can say, you know. So I was a little, you know, scandalized by the Pope saying, you know, that religion or faith, I guess, is purified by reason, huh? And then I heard Fr. Bishop Burke, you know, saying, you know, that faith purifies reason. That's a mouthful, Tom, so I'll have to chew on that for a while, huh? One of those things I say, you know, well, I understood something of that. But the next time I read it, I'll understand a little more of it. And if I've done it long enough, I might come to fully understand it, but if not... If I guess I'm a little forward to it. Yeah, yeah. Okay, now, we've got to look at the applied objections, huh? I thought we were out of this mess, but I guess we're not. Okay. The first one is taken from Romans 1, right? Quadante promissorat per profitas secretaris sanctis. But before he promised, right? To his prophets and the holy scriptures of the Son, who was made... What's the thing of Edo? Yeah, I've never noticed that before. I looked it up here, and they turned this to do what he... Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David. To the first, it should be said that in those words of the apostle, this relative, qui, right, that refers, what, for the person of the Son, right, ought not to be understood on the side of the predicate. As it were, something existing, as if someone, what, existing from the seed of David, right, according to the flesh, has been made the Son of God, right? In which sense the objection proceeds, but ought to be understood on the side of the subject, that the sense be that the Son of God was made to him, to the honor of the Father. Now, as the gloss expounds, existing from the, what, seed of David, according to the flesh, as if it were to say, the Son of God, having flesh from the seed of David, to the honor of God. That's clear as much, right? Yeah. But what he's not saying, I think, is clear, that the, that someone existing from the seed of David, according to the flesh, was made the Son of God, that wouldn't be, what, make any sense. And that's the sense, he says, in which the objection proceeds. But ought to be understood on the part of the subject, that the sense be that the Son of God was made to him, to wit, to the honor of the Father, existing from the seed of David, according to the flesh. As if one were to say, the Son of God, having flesh from the seed of David, to the honor of God. It's a little hard to get that out of the text today. But the one who is from the seed of David, according to the flesh, is not the subject. And that was, but the subject is the Son of God, right? Who was made, but who insofar as he has flesh from the seed of David, right? Is honoring the Father. Yeah, because at the beginning of the epistle, he says, he refers to, also set apart, unto the gospel of God. I think there, that might suppose, stand for the Father, the gospel of God, which he promised through the prophets. I think it's referring maybe to the Father, and then, I guess that's... Now, the second objection is taken from Augustine's text, right? Such was that taking on that God was made man, and man God, right? And he understands that in the second sense, where they're both true, I guess. To the second, it should be said that the word of Augustine should be understood in that sense. According to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text, according to Augustine's text. The Incarnation was made that man would be God, and God would be, what, man. In which sense, both speakings are true, as has been said. That's a middle case, I guess. Lucas is not speaking most properly. Likewise should be said in regard to the third objection now from Gregory Nazianzus, right? The fourth objection is saying that what? Making is said more of man than of God, right? So if you can say God was made man, could you say more so that man was made God, because man is more, what, made than God, right? So he says, to the fourth it should be said that the term placed in the subject holds materially. Like Gregory said, the predicate is formal, and the subject, as the word subject indicates, is held materially. You've got no kind of Latin grammar, I mean, medieval grammar. That is for the suppositum. But placed in the predicate, it's held, what, formally. That is for the nature signified, huh? That's kind of a common thing Thomas will say. The predicate is formal with respect to the subject, right? And the subject is, it says, underlying, right? That kid's said materially. And therefore, when it is said that man was made, what, God, the becoming is not attributed to human nature, but to the suppositum, right, of human nature, which is God from eternity. And therefore, it does not belong to it, to, what, become God. Whenever it is said that God was made man, the making is understood to terminate to, what, human nature itself. And therefore, properly speaking, this is true, that God was made, what, man. But this is false, that man was made, what, God. Just as in Socrates, when before he was a man, was afterwards made white. Pointing to Socrates, we'd say, this is true, this man today was made white. But this is false, that this white thing today was made a man. Here he was a man. If, however, from the part of the subject, there was place some name signifying human nature in the abstract, it could in this way signify as a subject of making. If we say that the human nature was made, what, of the Son of God, right? Or we say the human nature was drawn to, right? The divine nature. We need a break after that article.