Tertia Pars
Lecture 20: Christ's Assumption of Body and Soul

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

We can take intellectum to mean also the understanding soul, right? He took on the soul, but it was understanding. Because some said that the word was in place of the soul. Some finally had to admit that he had a soul, but they made it have an animal soul. And in place of the intellect, he had the word, right? So all these things, Thomas is going to belabor, right? To the first, one goes forward thus. It seems that the Son of God did not assume a true body. For it is said in the Epistle to the Philippians, chapter 2, verse 7, that he was made in the likeness of man. That seems like he's not really a man, but he had the likeness of man. But what is in truth should not be said by likeness. Therefore, the Son of God did not assume a true body. Of course, in that case, I wouldn't have a true human body because I'm like you. Two arms, two legs, and so on. Moreover, the taking on of a body should in no way detract from the dignity of his divine nature. For Leo the Pope, well, I suppose that's Leo the Great, right? In his sermon about the nativity, that his glorification or his glory neither, what? Consumed the lower nature, nor did the taking on of it lessen the higher nature. But this pertains to the dignity of God, that he could be altogether separated from a body. Therefore, it seems that through the assumption of taking on, God was not united to a, what? Body, no? The third objection. Moreover, signs ought to correspond to the things signified by them. But the appearances of the Old Testament, which were signs and figures of the apparition of Christ, were not according to the truth of the body, but according to an imaginary vision. As is clear in Isaiah chapter 6, I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, right? Therefore, it seems that the appearance of the Son of God in the world was not according to the truth of the body, but only according to the imagination. And that's, I guess, what the mannequins among others said. Fictitious. But against this is what Augustine says in the book of the 83 questions, huh? If the body of Christ was a phantasm, ah, an image, huh? Then Christ, what? Deceived, huh? It's what it means, fethelot, huh? I couldn't find it in my little sales dictionary. I was looking to, what's the word that's from? Fethelo. Fethelare. Well, it was in mind. I just have to, you know... It says it's uncommon, but you fail by be disappointed with. But that maybe is not a medieval. And if he deceived, he is not truth, right? But Christ is truth itself, huh? Therefore, his body was not a phantasm in image, right? And thus it is clear that he assumed a true, what? Body, right? What does Thomas do in response, huh? I mean, basically he results, he rests upon authority, right? So he says, I answer it should be said that as is said in the book about church dogmas, right? Now, incidentally, at the bottom of my footnote says, inter-opuscula augustin, but I can't find that in the works of Augustine. This one refers to Scenadius. Yeah. I don't know who he is, but that's... It says, chapter two, inter-O-P-P-A-U-G. Oh. And, but I look, you know, in the one you can get on the internet there, all the Latin is Augustine, it's not... This one gives you a reference in mean, mean, and now, does it give you a reference... No. This one gives you a reference in mean, so we can look at that. Okay, okay. So it is said, anyway, in this book, which is a collection of, you know, must be a 30-day text. He was born, the Son of God was born, none, what? In thought only, right? Putative. As it were, having an imaginative body, but a, what? True body, right? So Thomas is answering it, basically, by authority, right? Which is the strongest argument, you know, in theology. But nevertheless, for the authority, he's going to give some, what? Reasons why this is reasonable. And a three-fold reason for this can be assigned. And you will notice these same three reasons will be given in the second article. Of which the first is, a reason is from human nature, to which it pertains or belongs to have a true, what? Body, right? Supposing, therefore, from what has gone before, and that it was suitable for the Son of God to assume human nature, consequently he assumed a, what? Yeah. Simple enough, right? So that's reasoning from what was in the previous question, right? So if he became a man, he must have taken on a human body. It's the same thing for the soul, but here's the question about the body, right? The second reason can be taken from those things which were done in the mystery of the Incarnation. For if he did not, if it was not a true body of his, but a fantastic one, a fictitious one, therefore he would not have truly, what? Undergone a true death, right? Nor any of those things which the evangelists narrate would have been done in truth, but only according to a certain appearance. And thus it would foul that there was not a true, what? Salvation of men, for it is necessary that the effect be proportioned to the, what? Cause. The third reason can be taken from the very dignity of the person assuming, who, since he is truth itself, right? It was not befitting that in his work there be any, what? Fiction. Whence also the Lord excludes this error by himself, right? He found himself worthy of doing this, right? Okay. When the disciples were disturbed and frightened, they thought they saw a, what? A spirit. He didn't say, I'm only a phantasm. Not a true body. Therefore he offered himself, right, to be touched by them, right? Touched and see. Because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me, Papa. The first objection said, well, he speaks of him being made in the likeness of men, right? But there's many ways you can understand that, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that likeness expresses the truth of the human nature in Christ, in the way in the way in which all who truly exist in human nature are said to be like in what? Species or kind, huh? It's not to be understood of a fantastic likeness, huh? And to the evidence of this, the apostle joins underneath this, right? That he was made obedient to death, to the death of the cross, huh? Which could not have come about if it were only a fantastical or imaginative likeness. Phantasm is kind of like the Greek word for imagery, imagination. Forget the word fancy, huh? That's what you get to, especially, you know, say about a guy, you fancy her? Because imagination is kind of involved here in love, Greek love. The second objection was saying, hey, to put, drag God down to the level of a body, right, is to go against his dignity, right? Yeah. To the second, then, it should be. He said, that by this, or through this, that the Son of God assumed a true body, in no way was his dignity or worth excellence diminished. Once Augustine says in the book about faith to Peter, he emptied himself, right, like he said in scripture, taking on the form of a servant, that he might become a servant. But he did not, what, lose the fullness of the form of, what, God. God, for the Son of God did not thus take on a true body, that he became the, what, form of a body. Because then he would be kind of drawn down, right? Which is repugnant to the divine simplicity and purity. For this would be to take on a body in the unity of nature. And that's impossible, that the divine nature be put together with something else to form something new. But, saving the distinction of the natures, he assumed it to the unity of his, what, person. It's a very strong way of scripture speaks, so he emptied himself, right? He has this example of what humility, huh? On the third objection, in some way, was kind of weak there, right? To the third, it should be said that a figure ought to respond as regards, what, likeness, not as regards, what, truth of the thing. Because if in everything there was likeness, there would no longer be a, what, sign, right? But the thing itself, huh? So at the Paschal Lamb, there was really a human being, right? Wouldn't be so much a sign anymore. As Damascene, right? I was remarking earlier that this is the feast of John of Damascus, huh? So it used to be John of Damascene. I said, John of Damascus, it must be the same guy. It can't be too. It was suitable, therefore, that the appearances of the Old Testament were by appearance only, right? As it were being figures. But the appearance of the Son of God in the world would be according to the truth of the body. As the thing figured or signed or signified through those, what, figures. Whence the Apostle says in the Epistle of the Colossians, chapter 2, that these things are the shadows of future things. The body of Christ, huh? That's a good way of saying it, huh? Because a shadow is not truly a body, right? But it represents the body, right? It's a likeness of the body. The Apostle here, meaning St. Paul, is talking about the Old Testament, right? And the things there are called the what? Shadows, right? Some things cast a shadow before them. You heard that said, right? Now the second article arises because of the ancient belief. First of all, the heavenly bodies, right? We're a different kind of body than the bodies down here. And different, the remarkable and so on. And then they misunderstand the text, as you'll see in the first objection. So did he have earthly body or heavenly body? To the second one goes forward thus. It seemed that Christ did not have a fleshly body or an earthly body, but a what? Heavenly body. Now those who say this say that Mary is not really his mother, right? But that he passed through Mary like a canal or something, right? But not really taking flesh from her. And here's a text to misunderstand, right? You always find a text to misunderstand. For the apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians chapter 15, the first man was of the earth, right? Earthly. That's Adam, I guess. The second man of the heaven. Heavenly, right? But the first man to Adam was of the earth as regards his body, as is clear in the account in Genesis 2. Therefore also, the second man, Christ, was from heaven as regards his what? Body. Y'all convinced? Moreover, 1 Corinthians 15, the same chapter. Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God. That's pretty. To the point. But the kingdom of God is chiefly in what? Christ. Therefore, in him there is no flesh and blood, right? But more, a heavenly body. It's even more convincing, right? Too powerful arguments. Moreover, everything that is best ought to be attributed to God. But among all bodies, the most noble is the heavenly body, thought to be immortal. Therefore, such a body. Christ ought, therefore, to assume or take on such a body. Against all this is what the Lord says in Luke chapter 24. Therefore, spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see we have. But flesh and bones are not from the matter, they have their bodies, but from the lower elements, earth, air, fire, and water. Therefore, the body of Christ was not a heavenly body, but a fleshly and earthly body. Well, Thomas is going to use the same arguments, huh? I answer it should be said that for the same reasons, it appears wherefore the body of Christ ought not to be heavenly, by which it was shown that it ought not to be what? Just imaginary, right? First, because there would not be saved the truth of human nature in Christ if his body were what? Imagination, yeah, imaginative. As the Manichaeans laid down. The Manichaeans thought that matter was what? Evil. Evil, yeah. So he couldn't take on this, right? Couldn't take on this evil, so it must be a very apparent sound. So also, human nature would not be saved if one laid down a celestial body as Valentine, laid down, huh? Since the form of man is a, what, natural thing, it requires a determined, what, matter, to wit, flesh and bones, huh? Which ought to be, which is necessary to lay down in the definition of man as is clear through the philosopher in the seventh book of wisdom. So that's when you study the, what, the three books about the soul, right? And you see the soul is to the body as form is to, what, matter. Or like an art is to its, what, tools, right? So Aristóteles says, when the Pythagoreans say, you know, the soul of a man could become the soul of a dog or vice versa, right? He says, well, that's as if, you know, one art could go into the, what, tools of another art, huh? I always take the example there. My brother-in-law does some carpentry and my wife who does some sewing, right? And my brother-in-law, you know, if he gives him a needle and thread, he's going to be able to work with the wood. Like a house. You know, I always look out there with a hammer and a nail, you know, putting the dress together or something. So one art cannot enter into the tools of another art, right? So they're, they relate to each other. Yeah, something like that when Aristotle's talking about government there in the politics, huh? That you can't realize just any form of government in any people, right? But this form of government fits these people, and maybe that form of government fits this other kind of people, huh? And so it's like matter, form, and matter, right? So he's saying, since the form of man is a natural thing, it requires a determined matter. He's referring to what Aristotle does in the seventh book when he's refuting Plato's, right? Secondly, because this would take away from the truth of those things which Christ did in the body. Now, for since the heavenly body, in the old theory, right, could not undergo anything, was incorruptible, right? As is proved in the first book about the universe, Aristotle's book. If the Son of God assumed the heavenly body, he would not truly, what? Got hungry or thirsted, thirsty, nor would he have sustained passion and death. And third, this would, what, take away from the divine truth. For since the Son of God shows himself to man as having a fleshly and earthly body, it would be a false, what, showing to them if he really had a, what, celestial body. And therefore, in the book about ecclesiastical dogmas, it is said that the Son of God was born, right, taking flesh from the body of the virgin, and not bringing it with himself from heaven. Okay? Now, how then do you understand what St. Paul says, right? The first man from the earth, right? The second man from heaven, he's heavenly, right? How does it get understood? It's a very interesting text that Thomas has. Because it's more full than sometimes when he explains this, you know. It's just one of these. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ is said in two ways to descend or come down from what? Heaven, right? In one way, by reason of his what? Divine nature. Not such that his divine nature ceased to be in heaven, right? But because in the lowest things, right, it began to be a new way. Because he began to be a man, right? According to the nature that he assumed. According to that in John 3. No one goes up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven. The Son of Man, right? Who's still in heaven. As God, right? So we speak of the, what? Divine nature being in heaven, right? But it's come down in a way because it's assumed human flesh. And now the other reason he gives here. In another way, by reason of the body itself. Not because the body of Christ, in its very substance, came down from heaven, right? Because it came from the Blessed Virgin, right? But because by a heavenly power, that is the power of the Holy Spirit, his body was, what? Formed, huh? When Seagustine says to Erosius, expounding the authority he brought in in his argument, I call Christ, right? Celestial, because he was not conceived from human, what? See? The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, right? In this way also, Hillary expounds this, right? In the book about the Trinity. So these two great minds there, Augustine and Hillary, right? Gave this second explanation. See? These two ways of understanding St. Paul's way of speaking. It's amazing how many things the human mind can understand, misunderstand. St. Paul's way of speaking. probably more things you can misunderstand than understand now the second objection is saying well flesh and blood won't possess the kingdom of God Thomas says well flesh and blood do not take there not taken there for the substance of flesh and blood right but for the corruption of flesh and blood a little bit like Falstaff says right you know you know she had pity on him right because he has more flesh than other men right therefore his frailty should be understood my brother Mark gets married he says it's kind of late in life we don't compare he's going the way of all flesh but notice we do speak of the flesh as warring against the spirit right and there you're talking about the corruption of the flesh right and the flesh of Christ didn't war against his his spirit huh so I mean he's not we're inventing this meaning of flesh right just to get out of this to answer this objection right but you find in scripture itself that it has that meaning okay which corruption was not in Christ as regards but guilt sin sin but it was for some time as regards but being punishable and being made hungry and thirsty and so on so that he might carry out or fulfill the work of our what redemption now the third objection is well doesn't this shouldn't the best attributed to God right to the third then it should be said that this itself pertains to the what greatest glory of God that a infirm and earthly body right he what promoted you might say to such what sublimity right mountain there right the transfiguration right which is kind of a anticipation of the glory you have after resurrection once in the Synod of Ephesus the Council of Ephesus is read the words of what Saint Theophilus saying in the same way you might say that the what yeah the worker yeah best workers not by precious materials only right are showing what their art in admiration but by assuming right the vile clay right the disillusion and so on showing the power of their what discipline or art right are much more praised right just like a cook right how the very humble leftovers you know can do some really you know more marvelous building you or I might be able to do other you know good raw materials right okay so the highest artist of all right the word of God right not some precious material celestial body taking that on right grasping that came to us but he showed right he made do his art in clay or in dirt right yeah okay that's kind of interesting way of answering that third objection as soon as a cook would do some marvelous things leftovers you know they don't seem very promising that's what Chesterton says that's kind of the genius of femininity that can take small things that out there and just throw away and make something marvelous about it you know he remarks about cooking but also with like a birthday or something and they take the simplest thing they don't have much they'll make it some marvelous things besides we had something like chicken and roast and beef and I said hey point away with this a very marvelous meal you know we don't have two different wines with most meals you know that's a little contradiction it's an excuse you know to have two different wines and we live it up Okay, now the famous misunderstanding of the phrase, and the word was made, what? Flesh, yeah. It's interesting that God will say things in this way, right? Giving us the occasion, you might say, to misunderstand, huh? But he wants to make a point, huh? Well, we'll see what that is. To the third one goes forward thus, it seems that the Son of God did not assume a soul. Notice the first two articles are about the body, right? That part. And now the next two articles are about what? The soul, right? But the previous question is about human nature as a whole, right? The kind of implicit in that is that he would take on the human body and the human soul, but he's spelling this out, right? For John, treating of the mystery of the Incarnation, of course that word Incarnation comes from, yeah. It says the word was made flesh, huh? Okay, so Incarnatio comes from those words, sounds kind of way of speaking of the word, it was made flesh. Making no mention of the soul. But he did not say that it was made flesh, meaning that it was what turned into flesh, right? That's not a heresy. We can dispose of it another time. But because he took on flesh, right? Therefore, it does not seem that he took on his soul. I remember the woman next door there, and there was a boy. And she was a Protestant of some sort. She had read in the Gospels there, you know, the brothers and sisters of Christ, where it speaks of that. And we were trying to explain to her, you know, that this doesn't mean, well, we usually mean we're brother and sister now, right, huh? Because you can find even the Old Testament, huh? People are saying we're brothers, right, even though they're maybe, you know, uncle and nephew or something, right? Yeah. And, but people can, you know, honest folk, you know, can get mixed up in these things, huh? Moreover, the soul is necessary to the body so that it might, what, be alive through it, huh? But this does not seem to be necessary to the body of Christ, it seems, because the word of God itself, about whom it is said in the Psalm 35, Lord, with you is the fountain of what? Yeah. So somebody's called him the fountain of eternal life, right? But what does he need a soul for then, right? He's got the fountain of life, right? The fountain of life is going to. Therefore, it seems superfluous, right, that a soul should be, what, present, huh? When the word is present, huh? When the fountain of life is present. And God and nature do nothing in vain, right? As even the philosopher says in the first book about the universe, huh? Therefore, it seems that the Son of God did not assume a soul. There would be no need to assume this, right? Because in this case, he'd be redeeming just our, what? Yeah, not our soul. That's third objection is a little more stranger. Further, from the union of the soul to the body is constituted a common, what? Nature, which is the human species. But in the Lord, Jesus Christ, there is no common, what? Species to be taken, as Damascene says in the third book. So, let's just kind of understand what Damascene is saying. You know, don't worry too much about it. We'll see what Damascene really meant. He did not, therefore, take on a, what? Soul, right, huh? I guess Damascene is speaking about the word and what, human nature becoming one thing, right? Okay, nature. But against this is what Augustine says in the book on Christian struggle. Agony. Nor will we hear those who say only a human body was taken on by the, what? Word of God, right? And that thus they hear or understand the word was made flesh. And that they deny that man either a soul or they had something of man beside the, what? Flesh only, huh? Okay, to answer, it should be said that as Augustine says in the book on heresies, huh? The, this opinion was first that of, what? Arius, and later on of Apollinaris, right? Thomas talks about those two in the Subaconti Gentiles, huh? That the Son of God assumed only flesh without a, what? Soul. Laying down that the word itself was to the flesh in the place of a, what? Soul. From which it would follow in Christ there are not two natures, but one only, right? For from the soul and one flesh, human, or from the soul and from the flesh, one human nature is put together, constituted. But this position cannot stand. For three reasons, huh? First, because it is repugnant to the authority of Scripture, in which the Lord makes mention about his soul. And Thomas gives a text of Matthew 26, during the Passion of our Lord. My soul is, what? Said, was squared mortum, right? Right up to death. And in John 10, verse 18, I have power of, what? Laying down my soul. You can see his power of taking it up, he says too, I think. But to this, Apollinaris answers, huh? That in these words, the soul is taken, what? Metaphorically. Through which way, or in that way, which in the Old Testament, this is kind of a strange text, right? The soul of God is, what? Commemorated, right? Spoken of. My soul hates your, what? Feasts. But, as Augustine says in the book of the 83 questions, the evangelists in the, what? Gospel narration, narrate that Jesus, what? Wondered, huh? And he became angry, right? And he was, what? Saddened, and he was hungry, right? Which thus showed that he had a true soul, just as from the fact that he ate and slept and was fatigued, it was demonstrated that he had a true, what? Human body, huh? Otherwise, if these are referred to the metaphor, since like things I read in the Old Testament about God, the faith of the, what? Gospel narration would perish. For others, what is prophetically announced in figures, other, what is written according to the, what? Propriety of things, the proper qualities of things, by the evangelists in a historical, what? Way. But basically saying, in the beginning of this argument, that the New Testament, right? The Gospels, Christ refers sometimes to his, what? Soul, right? In things that his soul would do, like wonder, that the word itself would not wonder, right? Does God wonder his divine nature? But is that what he's made? Secondly, because this takes the foresaid error, takes away from the usefulness of incarnation, which is the, what, liberation of man from sin, I guess. For as Augustine argues, and he's a pretty important guy, this Augustine, I don't know who he is, but he's pretty important, whoever he is. For as Augustine argues in the book against what? Yeah. If taking on flesh, the Son of God omitted the soul, either he, thinking it to be what? You know, unimportant, right? Not to be needing in medicine, right? Or thinking it to be what? Alien from himself, right? He did not give to it the benefit of redemption. Or judging it to be wholly what? Uncurable. He didn't, yeah? Or vile, and to no use is apt, huh? He threw it away. These two things imply blasphemy in God, right, huh? In what way is he omnipotent if he is not able to cure the, what? Desperate, right, huh? In what way is he the God of all if he did not himself make our, what? Soul. And the two others, right, is not known, the cause is not known in the, what? One of the soul. In the other, merit is not held. So we read that in English. Yeah, that's a lie. Yeah. There's got the English text there. What's the whole thing? Yeah, just read the whole text of Augustine, yeah. Now, two of these reasons. Imply a blasphemy against God. For how shall we call him omnipotent if he is unable to heal what is beyond hope? Or God of all, if he has not made our soul? And as regards the other two reasons, in one the cause of the soul is ignored, and in the other no place is given to merit. Is he to be considered to understand the cause of the soul, who seeks to separate it from the sin of willful transgression, enabled as it is to receive the law by the endowment of the habit of reason? Or how can his generosity be known to anyone who says it was despised on account of its ignoble sinfulness? If you look at its origin, the substance of the soul is more precious than the body, but if at the sin of transgression, on account of its intelligence, it is worse than the body. Now I know and declare that Christ is perfect wisdom, nor have I any doubt that he is most loving. And because of the first of these, he did not despise what was better and more capable of prudence. And because of the second, he protected what was most wounded. Basically, the soul is even more in need, you might say, redemption than the body, because it's through the soul that man fell, yeah. And it's through his freedom of his will, right? He's capable of sin, right? So if the soul is even more in need of, what, redemption than the, what, body, yeah? That's what Thomas talks about, the judgment on the soul after death, right? Where the soul is by itself without the body, before the general judgment, huh? There's an order there, right? Because sin began in the sense in the soul, right? And it proceeds to the body. Okay, then the third reason is because this position is against the truth of the incarnation. For flesh and the other parts of man get their, what, species through the soul. Once, as Aristotle said, the soul leaving, there is not, what, flesh or bone, except, what, equivocally. Aristotle says something about the eye, right? The eye of the corpse, his eye, equivocally, right, doesn't have the ability to see anymore. This is clear through the philosopher in the second book about the soul. That's where he defines the soul, right? In the seventh book, the wisdom there, the metaphysics. Okay, now let's go back and say to the first objection, which is, hey, what about this word made flesh, right? The soul is so important, why is it not mentioned? And so on. Now, the first, therefore, it should be said, that when it is said that the word was made flesh, huh? Flesh is laid down for the whole man, right? As if one were to say that the word was made, what? Man, right? Now, we've talked before about this figure of speech, which is called, what? Yeah, yeah. The name of the whole was given to the part, the name of the part is given to the what? He's a brain. Well, that's the Synecdoche, right? And Thomas says this is not just invented for this purpose here, right? As it says in Isaiah chapter 40, all flesh will see the what? Yeah. So sometimes we're called flesh, and sometimes you'll find passages in Scripture where we're called souls, right? So we're giving the name of the part to the what? Oh, right. And sometimes the philosopher gets close to that way of speaking, right? Like Aristotle will say, reason more than anything else is man. But now, why do you use this figure of speech here, right? But therefore, huh? The whole man is signified by flesh because, as is said in the authority induced, because through the flesh the Son of God became what? It's visible, right? Whence there is added, and we saw his what? Glory, right? That's one reason he gives, right? It's like to say, and the word was made flesh, and the word was made what? Visible, right? That's one way of emphasizing that, right? And Thomas takes that from the text itself, where we saw his what? Glory, right? Okay. When did they see his glory? Yeah. And especially on the transfiguration, right? But the transfiguration was what? A light shining through the body, right? Okay. Or, therefore, because, as Augustine says in the book on 83 questions, I don't know what's going to show up among those 83 questions, I guess. In that whole unity of taking on, the principle or chief thing is the word itself, right? And the last thing is what? The flesh, right? Wishing, therefore, the gospel writer, wishing, therefore, to commend to us the, what? Love of the humility of God, right? Word and flesh names, huh? Omitting the soul, which is less than the word, but better than the flesh, right? Went all the way down to the flesh, right? Okay. And Thomas gives another reason here. It was reasonable that he named the flesh, which on the fact that it's more distant from the, what, word, right? Would seem to be less, what? Distant, what? Yeah. Take honorable. Right? Okay.