Tertia Pars
Lecture 35: Christ's Knowledge of the Divine Essence and All Things

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and bloom in our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly, St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Amen. Help us to understand, O Juventus, and Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. I was reading through the encyclicals of Benedict XV, among whom is the one on St. Ephraim, you know. Of Syria, and that's the one where he makes him the universal doctrine of the church, right? It's got, what is it, Principo something, Apostolor Petro, you know. That's the Latin title of it, you know. But anyway, he also has an encyclical on St. Dominic, you know. And there's a couple of paragraphs here that I thought were relevant for our thing here. Paragraph two of the encyclical, he says, This man of God, in true Dominicus, the Lord's man, right? Was fully given up to Holy Church, which had in him an invincible champion of the faith. The order of preachers, you know, the Dominican, that's their official name. That's why they put OP after their names as a priest. The order of preachers, too, found by him, has ever been the stout defense of the Roman Church. And so not only did he strengthen the temple in his time, but he provided for the continuance of the defense. The words of Honorius III, Pope Honorius III, in approving the order, seem prophetical. Now he quotes the words of Honorius III. Looking to the brethren of thy order as the future champions of the faith and the true lights of the world. That's a beautiful expression now, the true lights of the world. Then they're on the seventh paragraph here. The very wisdom of God seemed to speak to the Dominicans. Isn't that a strong phrase? The very wisdom of God seemed to speak to the Dominicans. When there rose up among them such heralds and defenders of Christian wisdom, as Highest Thinth, Polonis, huh? He's a great, in Poland, when he went to Russia, he went to Scandinavian countries and so on. Peter the Martyr, huh? Vincent Ferrer, right? And such miracles of genius and erudition. As Albert the Great, huh? Raymond de Penafort, he's famous for the work in the canon law. But I like him for being Master General of Dominicans for about three years until he resigned. But that's got Thomas to write the silver copy of Gentiles. My favorite book, so that's enough claim. So he says, Such miracles of genius and erudition is Albert the Great, Raymond de Penafort, Thomas Aquinas, huh? In whom, especially a follower of Dominic, God deigned to elect in his church. That's very strong, huh? God deigned to elect in his church, Thomas Aquinas. This order, therefore, always in honor as a teacher of truth, acquired new luster when the church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own. That's beautiful, huh? The teaching of Thomas to be her own. And that doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontus, the master and patron of Catholic schools. That's master, no, not as opposed to slave, but master is a magister, right? So, I mean, if you recall, if you're Lombard, the magisteria, you know, by Tona Masita, but really Thomas should be called the magisteria. So we're going to go back to the magisteria now. So you can have this, he wants to look at those two passages. So we're up to question 10 here, huh? Now, following the, what, the rule of two or three, right? If one is going to divide the knowledge of Christ, I divided it into two. His knowledge as God and his knowledge as man, huh? And that exhausts the subject, right? Now, you can't really divide his knowledge as, what, God, although we do see a distinction, huh? A reason between what you'll see, spoken of here again, the scientia, what, vision, and the samtichis intelligentsia, right? But that's not really a distinction between two things, huh? There are two knowledges of God, right? But on the side of the human knowledge, he divides it into three, right? And so these three questions will be about, huh? His knowledge and his vision that he has in his human nature of God, and then his infused knowledge, and then his knowledge acquired by experience, huh? So he's still following the rule of, what, two or three, right? In fact, all the way down, he's following the rule of two to three, right? This whole question of the knowledge of Christ is part of a division of, what, the good things assumed, right? Grace and knowledge and power. And that's a larger two, the things co-assumed, right? The good things, and then the defects assumed, right? The mortal flesh and so on. What did you say was that possible one for dividing the knowledge of God? Well, you'll find this distinction between what they call the knowledge of things past, present, and future, right? That God has, and that's called the sciencia visionis, the science of vision, of sight. And then the things that, what, could have been, right, but God didn't make, and so on. Things he's capable of doing, and that's the science of simple, what, intelligence, huh? Sapticis intelligentsia is a term they use, right? But that's not two different knowledges in God, huh? It's kind of a distinction of reason, huh? On the side of the things known, right, but not a distinction of two real distinct knowledges of God, no. But in the human soul of Christ, the distinction of the three is the three really different things, three different things, three different knowledges, huh? Not just a distinction of reason, but a distinction of things, huh? Yeah. Okay? He takes up the blessed science first, I suppose that's appropriate in the order of theology, because everything is referred to God, right, and this is closest to God, huh, of any of the three knowledges. So, the beginning of question 10, of course, he gives us division of the three, and then he says we're going to ask four things. First, about the first kind of knowledge, the knowledge and the big division. Whether Christ comprehended, huh? The word or the divine essence, huh? Secondly, whether he knew all things in the word, huh? And whether the soul of Christ in the word knew an affinity of things. And whether he saw the word or the divine essence more clearly than, what, any other creature, even in the seraphim. To the first, therefore, one goes forward thus. It seems that the soul of Christ comprehended the word or the divine essence. For Isidore, huh, the great authority there, says the Trinity to itself, what, alone is known and to the man taken on, huh? Therefore, the man taken on has in common with the Holy Trinity that knowledge, huh, which is, what, proper to the Holy Trinity itself. But that is a knowledge of comprehension. Therefore, the soul of Christ comprehended the divine essence. So why does Isidore put those two together if they're not both comprehension, huh? Moreover, it is greater to be united to God in personal being, right, than according to the vision. But as Damascene says in the third book, The whole divinity in one of the persons is united to human nature in Christ. Much more, therefore, is the whole divine nature seen by the soul of Christ. And thus it seems that the soul of Christ comprehends the divine essence. So, more, therefore, is the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ, right, than the soul of Christ. Thank you. Or as Augustine says in the book on the Trinity, what belongs to the Son of God by nature belongs to the Son of Man by grace. But to comprehend the divine essence belongs to the Son of God by nature. Therefore it belongs to the Son of Man by grace. And thus it seems that the soul of Christ by grace comprehends the word. But against this is what Augustine says in the book on the 83 questions. That what comprehends itself is what limited to itself. But the essence, the divine essence is not limited in comparison to the soul of Christ. Since it exceeds that soul infinitely. Therefore the soul of Christ does not comprehend the word. So what do you guys think? Thomas says, I answer it should be said. This is clear from the things said before or above. Well, in this way was made the union of natures in the person of Christ. That nevertheless the, what? Property you might say, of each nature remained, what? Not mixed up with that of the other nature. So in the, what? In the Trinity you have a real distinction of persons, huh? In the Mr. Incarnation you have a real distinction of, what? Nietzsche's, yeah. Thus that the, as Damascene says in the third book, the uncreated remains, what? Uncreated, and the created remains within the limits of the, what? The creature, huh? It is, however, impossible that some creature comprehend the divine essence. Uncreated, as has been said in the first part, in that the infinite cannot be comprehended by the finite. The unlimited by the limited, huh? To comprehend the divine essence would be to know the divine essence as much as it's knowable, right? And therefore it should be said that the soul of Christ in no way comprehended the divine essence. That's putting him in his place, right? Amen. I always say that to you, I say, women are fine in their place. See how I'm reacting to that. Well, you've got to put the creature in this place too, right? And not be like, uh, uh, Forabok, right? And think that what is in some way infinite is simply speaking infinite, huh? At first text from Isidar he says, for this reason, huh? The man taken on is numbered with the divine trinity in his knowledge, not by reason of what? Comprehension, right? But by reason of a most, what? Excellent knowledge above other creatures, huh? Now to the second objection, which is taken from the fact that we joined to the divine person there. To the second it should be said, that not even in that union, which is according to personal being, does the human nature comprehend the, what? Word of God or the divine nature. Because although the whole was united to human nature in the one person, the son, nevertheless, the whole excellence or power of the divinity was not, what? Had a line drawn around it by human nature, huh? Sure, from scripta. When Augustine says in the epistle to Volusianum, uh, I wish you to know, I did not, does Christian teaching have this? It's not taught by in the Christian teaching. That God was, what? And so poured into the flesh that the care of governing the universe, that he deserted that or left it, right? Or that it was transferred to this, what? A little corpuscula? Yeah. As we're contracted and collected in, right? And likewise, the soul of Christ sees the whole essence of God but nevertheless, it does not, what? Comprehend it. Because he does not totally see it. That is, he does not see it as perfectly as it is, what? Visible, right? But Thomas often uses a little analogy that he talks about not only Christ's soul but our soul seeing God as he is and not comprehending him. It doesn't mean you see one part of God and not another part because God has no parts, right? And here's an interesting comparison to help us with this. He says that when you know a statement by demonstration, say, in geometry and you know it by some kind of probable argument, huh? The man who knows it by the probable argument, he knows the whole statement, subject and predicate, right? But he doesn't know the whole statement as much as it's knowable. So, take the Pythagorean theorem. I could go to the board there and demonstrate that now if I had to there in TAC class, huh? but if you accept that because Euclid says so or the geometries say so, right? Which is a probable reason to accept it, right? You know the whole statement but you don't know it as much as it's, what, knowable, right? So, that means that everything you can know, too, in seeing God, you don't know. You don't know God as much as he's knowable. A lot of times, too, you know, we, in philosophy and even science, you have some kind of a beginning or principle which many things follow, right, huh? And the better mind will see more consequences of it than the lesser mind, huh? So, one guy knows it more than the other guy does, huh? They might both know the whole, right? But one guy knows it and sees what follows from it, huh? So, Christ sees the whole divine essence, but he doesn't see it as much as it's, what, knowable. And we'll see, he sees it more clearly, though, than the other creature we'll see in another article. But at this point, we're just talking about does he comprehend it, right? He doesn't see it as he sees it in his divine nature. Did someone then say, well, then, that, that, that, Christ didn't know who was God in a certain sense? And that's that he doesn't follow from it. That doesn't follow from that, no. Yeah. No. Because that's so much, the fact, that he is. He knows the Trinity and everything, right? He knows himself and his divinity, right? So, when we see God as he is, we'll see the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, right? Yeah. And he, for it's your, Christ sees that, right? When he sees God, right? He knows he right back himself. Yeah. Yeah. That's me, that's me, yeah. That's me as God, but not me as man. So, what is that, what I'm trying to figure out, what is that, what's the distinction, or whatever that makes it not following? Makes what? What? The reason why he can't comprehend him, or what? No, the reason why someone couldn't say, that he didn't know himself. He didn't know himself. In a, in a, in a, in a certain sense. And what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to figure that out from, that is something, I know it's a stupid statement, but I'm trying to figure out what. Why do you say this? You mean, or? Somehow. If some, if some were to say that, if he didn't comprehend, yeah, I think it's a difference. I think what he's trying to say, is somebody will say, Christ didn't know who he was, he didn't know he was God. And they might say, well one of the reasons is, because St. Thomas says he didn't see the whole, he didn't see totally the God was, but of course that's not him as man. Yeah. There's nothing, so it's like, it's too big, it doesn't, there's no connection with the, I don't see it anyway. I think I see what you're, it's, it looks like it's kind of wound up with this question, that if his knowledge of the divinity, was of the whole, but not completely, not totally as he said. He, he sees God as he is, right? He sees everything. He sees, but he doesn't. Yeah, so then I'm saying, well, can't, but doesn't that say that then in a certain way he doesn't know God, that he doesn't know? He doesn't comprehend. He doesn't know it with a comprehensors knowledge. He knows God, he knows eternity, but he doesn't know them as much as they're knowable. Only God knows that as much as normal. It's the same thing we say about the law, you know. So, no one can love God as much as he's lovable, right? No one can praise God or glorify God as much as he's worthy of praise and glory. You know how St. Francis de Sales goes up to the praise of God gives to himself, right? Christ speaks to the glory I had with you before, the creation of the world. And we're thankful for that because we realize either we exhaust ourselves praising God, we have not praised him as much as he's worthy of praise, right? So, would that mean then in a certain way, in a certain sense, we don't love God? No, no, no, we love God, but God is infinitely lovable, right? And so the creature can not have an infinite love for God, right? He can always have in this life more love for God, right? But you can never love him as much as he's lovable, right? I've got to accept, you know, being loved by us less than he's lovable, right? Because we realize we can never love him, right? As much as he is, what, lovable, right? But he expects the bishop to love him more than me, right? You see, according to your state of life, right? There's certain, you know, love he wants you to arrive at by the time you kick the bucket. And you have that amount of love for eternity, yeah? I wonder if every individual sees things differently than every individual is loving God in a unique way, maybe unique aspects of God, and so the collective love of humanity, of God, are just always different. Yeah, but it's already a drop in the bucket compared to his love, though. Yeah, but, yeah. And less than that, because there's even no ratio, huh? Thomas even, in the Summa Congenitides, points out that other things would be equal, right? You love yourself more than others. And that's interesting when you apply to God's love of himself, right? Our happiness in heaven is going to insist chiefly in God, right? But God's not us, right? So God's going to enjoy himself even more than we're going to enjoy ourself. You can enjoy him, rather, huh? Because he is himself. Amazing, amazing being. And the third objection, how do you understand the words of Augustine? To the third it should be said, that though that word of Augustine should be understood about the grace of union, by which all things which are said of the Son of God, according to his divine nature, are said of the Son of Man, on account of the identity of the, what, suppositum, the individual substance, the person. And according to this, it can be truly said that the Son of Man is a comprehensor, right, of the divine essence. Not according to his soul, but according to his divine nature, right? Through which, in which way also, can be said that the Son of Man is the creator, right? It's a little bit like, you know, when you have accidental predication in man, if I'm a geometer, right, huh? Well, I'm a grandfather, too, right? So it can be truly said that this geometer is a grandfather, or this grandfather is a geometer, right? But I'm not a grandfather through my knowledge of geometry, right? I didn't do that, right? But you can truly say that this, because both of these are in the same person, right? This person here is a geometer and a grandfather, right? And this person here is God and man. So you can transfer, right, what is said of one to the other, but it doesn't mean that it's said according to the same nature, though. Christ is God, right? And that's why they're mad at him, you know, in the Gospel, right? He makes himself equal to God. But he doesn't make himself equal to God in his human nature. But in his divine nature, he's equal to God, he is God. Okay? And according to this, it can be truly said that the Son of Man is the comprehender of the divine essence, not according to the soul, but according to the divine nature. In which way, one can also say that the Son of Man is the, what, creator, huh? He didn't say that Mary's the mother of God. Even more amazing, huh? Sometimes, you know, it just bothersome when Catholics don't say the mother of God, right? But they must understand what it's meant by that, huh? That's why Chester didn't refer to that definition as a defiant definition. That's probably your greatest title, huh? Mother of God, the human heart, greater than the mother of the church, right? That's great, too. That's great, too. Mother of God, the human heart, greater than the mother of the church, right? Mother of God, the human heart, greater than the mother of the church, right? Mother of God, the human heart, greater than the mother of the church, right? Now, there's some sense of which the soul of Christ in the word sees all things, or knows all things. To the second one goes forward thus, it seems that the soul of Christ in the word does not know all things. For it is said in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 13, about that day, no one knows. The final judgment, I guess. Neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, except the Father. Therefore, he doesn't know all things in the word. Moreover, the more perfectly one knows some beginning, the more things one knows in that beginning. But God perfectly sees his own what? More perfectly sees his own essence than the soul of Christ. Therefore, he knows more things in the word than the soul of Christ does. Therefore, the soul of Christ in the word does not know all things. Moreover, the quantity, the amount of knowledge is observed according to the quantity of things known. If, therefore, the soul of Christ knew in the word all the things which the word knows, it would follow that the science of the soul of Christ is equal to the divine science. They created it to the uncreated. And that's a good sense. But against this is what is said on that of the Apocalypse, chapter 5, verse 12, that the Lamb is worthy who was, what, slain to take on, what, divinity and science. That is the knowledge of all things. I was reading in the golden chain this morning there. St. John, not St. John, St. John the Baptist says, Behold, the Son, the Lamb of God, and so on. About the sins, huh? Takes away the sins of the world. And then a couple of his disciples go and pursue him, right? And one of the commentators or one of the church fathers says, Well, sometimes you say great things about God. People are not drawn to him, right? To say something helpful, here's the Lamb of God, right? People have an interesting observation by one of the, one of those guys who use the golden chain. And the gloss says, what? A knowledge of all things, huh? Okay. Now, it says, I answer, it should be said that when it is asked whether Christ knew all things in the word, it should be said that the word omni-other, all things, can be taken in what? Two ways, huh? In one way, properly, that it is distributed for all things, things which, in any way, are, now, or were, or what? Will be, right? Whether they are things done, or things said, or thought, right? That's basically the word omni-other, according to any, what? Time, huh? And thus, it should be said that the soul of Christ, in the word, knows all things, huh? All things past, present, and future, right? All thoughts, sayings, and what? Deeds, right? Okay. Now, each created understanding, right? Knows in the word, not all things simply, but more, the more perfect it sees the word, huh? For to know blessed understanding is lacking, but that it know in the word all things that pertain to it, huh? So this guy we're talking about earlier, Dominic, right? He must know pretty well the status of the whole Dominican order, right? He might not know about the Jesuits, but he doesn't want to know about them. But he would know, maybe, you know, about his order, right? But to Christ, however, and to his, what? Dignity or worth pertain in some way all things, insofar as all things are to be subject to him. For he is constituted the judge of all by God, because he is the, what? Son of man, as is said in John 5, verse 27, right? And therefore, the soul of Christ, in the word, knows all things that exist in any time, right? Okay. And also the thoughts of men, of whom he is the, what? Judge, huh? For he said of him, in John chapter 2, for he knew what was in man, huh? The thoughts of these people, right? Because they're thinking, how can he forgive sins and all this stuff? They're always, you know, some complaint in their head about him. I see a nice phrase there in Shakespeare there, in Othello there. Something where he says, and don't let my ear be a stranger to your thoughts. They're barbarous, though, huh? Yeah. What? Don't make my ear a stranger to your thoughts. Ear? Yeah. Tell me what you said. Oh, thank you. Yeah. I know your thoughts through the words that you say that I hear, right? Yeah. So, but the kind of way he said it was kind of usual, you know? But not having, you know, or letting or making accurate what he said. His ears be a stranger to your thoughts. But we're often ignorant of the thoughts of others, right? Some people say we couldn't get along with each other. We knew what other people think of us, right? We just couldn't get along. It's probably good. He doesn't know. It's on everybody's mind. Yeah, I was thinking. I'm glad God only knows that stuff. Yeah. The priest was up there giving his sermon, you know, and some people don't like the sermon, you know. Yeah. And, you know, these people were thinking this or that about the sermon. Thank you. But Christ is going to judge all these things, right? So he has to know, huh? I suppose if you go to some big confession, you've got to open your mind to them, right? What your situation is. Because they're going to, what? Make a judgment, right? Okay. But therefore it's your events, huh? Christ may be the judge of all of us, right? Especially in the last judgment. He's got to know everything. In another way, though, taking all, what? More largely, right? That it extends not only to all things which are in act in some time, right? Doesn't mean just presently, but to the past, future, right? But also to all things whatsoever that are in, what? Power, but never brought to act. Of these, some are only in the divine power, right? So all the things that God could do, the infinity of them, they didn't do, right? He was able to do. And not all of this sort does the soul of Christ know in the, what? Word, right? For this would be to comprehend all the things which God is able to do. Which would be to comprehend the divine power, right? And since that's the same thing as the divine essence, it would be consequently to comprehend the divine essence. For the virtue of each virtue or power is known by a knowledge of those things in which it is capable, or for which it is capable. There are some things that are not only in the divine power, but also in the power of the creature, right? And all of these, the soul of Christ knows, huh? That's interesting, right? So if your mother and father had married other people, right? And Christ would know what, who would have been the result of it? You should have married so-and-so, you would have had these children, these grandchildren. For he comprehends in the word the essence of every creature, right? And consequently the power and the virtue in all things that are in the power of the creature, right? So he knows everything that God knows, right? By the sciencia, what, visionis, right? But not everything that God knows by this, of course, sciencia, sintetis intelligentsia, where he knows everything that's in his power, right? So that's the reason that might be an answer to your question. If he knows what creatures are capable of, then he knows this one that he has to be, is united with God. Yeah, because he was and is and will be. He knows himself, yeah. He knows all things that are in some time, right? Yeah. And in the fullness of time he came and is still around, actually. Yeah. Now the first objection was taken from this text, how you can understand that text, right? Now he says that word is understood by these heretics, Arius, right? Unomius, not as regards the knowledge of the soul, which they did not, what, place in Christ. They said that the divinity of Christ, which is not to be a divinity, is in place of the soul, right? Unomius, not as regards the divine knowledge of the son, which they placed to be, or which they laid down to be less than the, what, father, right? Unomius, not as regards the divine knowledge of the soul, but this cannot stand, because through the word of God, all things were made, huh? And among other things, also, what, through him were made all times, huh? And nothing made through him is not known by him, right? He is said, therefore, to not know the day and the hour of the judgment, because he does not make this, what? To be known, to be known, huh? Asked by the apostles about this in Acts, chapter 1, he did not wish to, what, reveal this, huh? Just as a contrario, it is said in Genesis 22, now I know that you, what, fear God. That is, now I have made this known, huh? As if God himself didn't know until this. Because, I guess that's the time he sacrificed his son or something, okay? The son is, the father is always said to know in that he, what, gives his knowledge to the son. Whence in this that it is said, except the father, it is given to be understood that the son knows. Not only as regards the divine nature, but also as regards the, what, human, huh? Because, as Chrysostom reasons, huh, if to the man Christ, huh, is given to know in what way each person ought to be judged, which is a much greater thing, much more is it given to him to know something much less, which is the time of the judgment, huh? Now, there's some other explanations that people give that phrase, too. Origin expounds this about Christ according to his body, which is the, what, church, which is ignorant of this time, right? And some say, this is to be understood of the son of God, if not the son, not the natural. But I don't think these are the most likely interpretations of that passage, as earlier ones are. It boils down to that he did want the apostles to know. To know when the day of judgment is going to be, yeah. So in order not to lie to them or anything, in fact, he hid it from himself? No, no, no, he says, in this kind of obscure way, right? By saying that he didn't know what he means, is that he's not in position to reveal it. That's the way, so it's a way, that's the way the catechism interprets it as well. The catechism and catechism church uses this interpretation, that the phrase means that I'm not able to tell you. Not that I don't know. It's like what they say when someone calls, or they look at the Father Alec, they say, he's not here right now. But he might be in the room, but that's not a lie, because it means he's not available. He doesn't want to be available. And he uses that example from Genesis, as sort of to explain this way, that's how we have to understand, when God says to Abraham, now I know. Well, he didn't know what? He said, no, he says, no, I made it known. If nothing else, to Abraham, if not to us. He revealed. So in this way, he says, I don't know, I'm not going to reveal. So that's how he's reading from another text. He knows how these ways of speaking, they're kind of difficult to understand in Scripture. You can see how Scripture can't stand without the Church and the tradition that understands this passage properly. I mean, a heretic can easily take these things and run with them. Isn't it also that the fact that St. Thomas gives different interpretations, it also says that there's still just reasonable guesses about what it means, some more reasonable than them, that there's still a certain mystery to that. Yeah, sometimes there's, you know, for Augustine and Thomas, there can be even a sense of letter more than one meaning. Yeah. That's kind of striking, huh? Yeah. I noticed Thomas even, in the definition there of eternal life, it's to know you the Father and him whom you have sent. Well, sometimes he takes it as referring to what? Just the Trinity, right? The Mr. Trinity. But other times he takes it as referring to the divinity and the humanity of Christ. So, I mean, he gives two different explanations of that, huh? The one that I was struck by was, because I grew up with it in a sense, the little characterisms we had, the little books we had when I was, you know, more orthodox in those days, but they were sometimes divided according to, I am the way, the truth, and the life. And this would be taking Christ the teacher, the truth, right? Christ, you know, the lawgiver and so on, or the king and so on. They take it as three different characteristics of Christ as man. He's king, priest, and prophet, right? Okay? But in the context, Thomas usually takes the I am in the way as referring to Christ in his, what, human nature and the truth and the life in his divine nature, right? But, you know, the Pope sometimes has taken those three as, what, the three, Christ is called Christ because he's anointed like a king, he's anointed like a priest and like a prophet, you know? There's examples of that in the Old Testament. And Christ is the anointed one, right? So he's these three. And so he gives us, you know, commandments as king and he gives us the creed as a prophet and the sacraments and so on, you know, as a priest and so on. And so that's one way of taking those three words to refer to the, what, human nature of Christ, huh? Although I think it fits the context a little bit more to say that I am the road, the human nature. That's why he says, you know, again, in the book, right? The third book here, about Christ, right? Who, as man, is the road. Very, very prologue in this part, huh? And then the other two to his divine nature. But he does the same thing with that other part. It's the eternal life, right? To know him, you the Father, and him whom you have sent. To know the Trinity. That's eternal life. That's fine. The scripture of life is St. Ephraim. He said, don't be sad that you can't go to scripture. He's glad that you can go back to the fountain for more. Yeah. You don't exhaust him.