Tertia Pars
Lecture 90: Christ's Presentation in the Temple and John's Baptism

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

But against all this is the authority of Scripture, right? Which testifies that this was what, in fact, done, right? I answer. It should be said, this has been said, that Christ willed to, what, be under the law, that those who are under the law, he might, what, and that the justifying of the law in his memories might be spiritually, what, fulfilled. But about the offspring born, there's a twofold precept treated of in the law. One was general in regard to all, and that when the days of, what, purification of the mother were completed, there be offered for the son or for the, what, daughter, a sacrifice. And this sacrifice was, what, for the expiation of sin, in which the offspring were conceived and, what, born. And also as for a certain consecration of him, right? Because then first he was presented to the temple. And therefore something is offered in, it's a holocaust, right? And something for, what, sin, huh? Now, there's another precept that was special in the law about the firstborn, both in, what, men and in the beasts, huh? For God acquired, I guess, that every one firstborn is real for the fact that in the liberation of the people of Israel, the firstborn of the Egyptians was what struck, right? From man all the way down to the beasts, huh? Cattle or something. The firstborn sons of the Israelites being, what, preserved in this, right? And this command is placed in Exodus chapter 13, in which also is prefigured Christ, who was the primogenet to us, the firstborn in many, what, yeah, as it said in Romans 8, huh? Because therefore Christ, born from a woman, right, was the firstborn, and because he wished to be under the law, these two, the evangelist, Luke, shows, were observed about him, huh? When you cried to him, right? So it's only in Luke that you have an account of this, huh? Because they point out that Luke, you know, when they say that he emphasizes the priesthood of Christ a little bit more than the others, that frequently, and more often than the other ones, you have the temple brought in, and I think at the end of the Gospel of Luke, they go back into the temple, and they're praising and thanking God, right? Don't have that in the other Gospels, right? True, right? Yeah. In the beginning, I thought. Yeah, yeah. So this place for the priesthood, right? So that kind of confirms, this aspect of Luke's emphasis there. That's, of course, to be understood according to the Anaxagorean way of thinking, right? No, Anaxagorean said that everything is inside of everything. Oh, yeah. He said, well, if that's true, then why call this a dog and not a tree? And he says, well, we call it by what it has most of. And I say, this is a common way of speaking, right? I mean, we speak of a market economy, even though the government has some influence over the economy, right? So what a thing has most of all, or more so in comparison to others, right? That's why we call it this or that, right? That's, I call that an exagorean way of naming things, which you have to follow, right? Okay. Just like Thomas will say about the Psalms is a book of what? Prayers and praising, right? I mean, there's prophecy in there, right? So why don't you put it with the prophets, you know? Well, next, Corey, we're speaking, right? It has more of prayer and praising than the other book, maybe, huh? Absolutely, it has more of that, or at least in comparison to other books, it does. So it's classified that way. That's the way the gospel is classified, right? You say, well, John emphasizes divinity and the other is the humanity. Well, divinity is in both. Humanity is in both, right? But it has more of either absolutely or in comparison to others. So it's important to observe that we have an exagorean way of naming things, right? Things are not cut off sometimes as sharply as it could be in other places. First, it regards that which pertains to the, what? Firstborn, when it's said, they took him to, what? Jerusalem, right? That they might offer him to the Lord, as is written in the law of the Lord, right? Because every, what? Masculine one, right? Every male. Opening the womb will be called, what? Holy. Given to the Lord, right? Secondly, that which pertains in general or commonly to all when it's said that they might give the, what? Victim, the host. According to what was said in the law of the Lord, right? Through the turtle doves or the other doves. When you say clomba man there in the Psalm of Psalms and the translated dove, yeah. Usually a man would call us a pigeon. Come, my pigeon. I see the English poets, you know, they can have fun with that because dove rhymes with a log, you see. And it does it in other languages, maybe, but in English it does. What about the objection there that he didn't open the womb, I guess here. To the first there, if it should be said, as Gregory Nice, that precept of the law in the only, what, incarnate God is singular in a singular way, right? And from others in a different way it seems to be, what, fulfilled, huh? For he alone, unspeakably conceived, right? And incomprehensibility here, huh? Edited, right? Sounds like a philosopher, yeah. Open the, what, virginal womb? Not, what? Not open before, I think. Yeah. I think, I think, what it says there, but this is not before. Canubio is the line together, I think. And then, reserado, that means open, right? The reserving after a giving birth, right? In an inviolable way, the sign of what? For chastity, right? Whence, what is said, opening the womb, designates that nothing before entered or went off, right? And to this also especially said, what? Masculinist, the male? Because nothing of, what? Yeah. He bore none of that. In a unique way, right? Holy, who the contagions of earthly corruption, right? By the new of his Immaculate coming forth, he did not sense or did not touch upon those contagions of the... So what is Thomas' answer to the fiction? Yeah. He said, you're being the spirit of the law, right? Not the litter of the law. He's saying in a sense that this is the one that is before all the rest, right? That's why it's said to open the womb. It gets you the first one out. So it's just a way of indicating that this is going to be the firstborn, right? And he suddenly uses the firstborn, huh? Oh, well, I'll get rid of that. It's good enough, I think, huh? Remindness of his breath, huh? Okay. To the second it should be said, huh? Now, the second objection. Fresh, I remember what the second objection was. Now, why should you present him if he's always united in person, right? To the second it should be said that just as the Son of God was not made man on account of himself, and he was circumcised in the flesh, and he was not circumcised in the flesh on account of himself, right? That's the whole problem in the sense. But that us, through grace, he might make, what? God's, huh? And that we might be, what? Spiritually circumcised, huh? Thus, on account of us, the Lord was, what? He was also. That we might learn to present ourselves to God, right, huh? And this was done after his, what? Circumcision, right? That he might show that no one except the one who is circumcised from his vices, huh? He is worthy of, what? Yeah. Sight. Get out of my sight. One of them always jokes. He says, when they brought you back from the hospital, I said, get him out of here. That's his joke. Your brother said that? Yeah, he says that. When was his age? He didn't say that. I mean, it's a joke the way he tells it now. And then he brought me back from the hospital. I said, get him out of here. Why come from a rough school of nox? I was looking at my doctoral thesis, you know. There was a guy up there who had known in high school, right? He'd come up to study there and so on. So we went out to dinner together, you know. And so I was kind of, you know, talking about my doctoral thesis I'm working on, you know, and so on. And he says, here's your mark. What's a back-hashing way of proceeding? He said. So I just laughed. I wasn't offended. I just got loud. You're feeling too touchy nowadays, you know. You can't, you know. You get sued, you know, for hate speech or something. I remember when I was first studying your philosophy, there's literally four kinds of clauses and so on. I studied some physics, you know, when I said to Kassarik, you know, is forced in a, you know, efficient cause, you know. He just laughed in my face. Other things he'd say to me, you know, Dwayne, I thought you were smarter than that. So I'm not around these records. Other men would have been crushed. Now what about being something for him, right? I mean, a sacrifice for him, right? The third should be said, on account of this, same thing, right? He wished, what? The lawful victims to be offered for himself, right? Who was the true, what? Victim, right? That the figure might be, what? Showing to the truth. And that through the truth, the figure might be approved, right? Or confirmed, right? Against those who deny the God of the law to have been preached right by Christ in the gospel, right? Okay. It should not be thought, as Origen says, that the good God, right, made under the law his enemy, his own son, which he did not, what? Himself give, right? There was a heresy there, wasn't there? The church, you know, the God of the Old Testament is not... It's a martyr. Yeah. Almost kind of Manichaean idea, almost. He's the one that punishes, right? It's a bad God, the one that punishes, you know? Now the fourth objection, why not have a lamb, you know? To the fourth it should be said, in the Levite, chapter 12, that it was commanded that those who are able, right, would offer a lamb for their, what, son or daughter, at the same time a, what? But who were not wealthy enough, I suppose, to offer the lamb, they would offer two turtle doves, or two doves. Now the Lord, however, who, when he was, what, wealthy, on account of us, was made needy, right, that by his poverty he might, what, make us wealthy, as he said in the Corinthians, to Corinthians, he wished to offer himself, yeah, yeah, he wished, yeah, oh yeah, that makes sense, yeah. He wanted for himself, the victim of the poor, right? Of the poor. Too often, yeah. Just as in the birth, he was wrapped in these, what, linens, was it? Yeah. And put in the, basically the animal's rest, huh? Nevertheless, these birds are suitable to the figure item for the turtur, is that the turtledove? Because he is a talkative bird, right? And this loquax, I don't see you call something, he talks too much now. You are an obvious loquax. Signifies the preaching and the confession of faith, right, huh? Because, however, he is a, what, chaste animal, it signifies, what, chastity, right, huh? Because he is a solitary animal, it signifies contemplation. That's very good, huh? Now the columba, and the dove there is a mild animal, right, and simple, signifying mildness and simplicity. That's what he says about being wise as, what, serpents? Mm-hmm. Wise, wise, wise. And simple. Yeah. And he is a, a, a congregating animal. Once it signifies the, what, active life. That's interesting, huh? I don't know how some of these guys are. Mm-hmm. I'm not sure that I know the difference between those two birds. Do you know them? Yeah. It's, uh, I guess, columba can be a pigeon, but a dove. Mm-hmm. But the tour tour says turtle dove. So it's a kind of dove. I thought doves were kinds of pigeons. White, white pigeons. No, it's pigeons or a rock dove. A pigeon technically is a rock dove. They dwell in rock. Right, they like going in. So that's why they thrive in cities. It's somewhat similar to their natural environment. So, pigeons are kind of doves. But I know also the word they keep using there with the columba is they keep using the pull-ups. That's the young dove. Now both animals are custom of what? Moaning, I guess. Yeah, growing. Yeah. They designate the present weeping of the same sun. But the turtur, which is solitary, signifies the tears of prayers. Right, eh? But the columba, which is congregating Yes, signifies the public prayers of the church. So when you pray probably you're a turtle, and you pray in the church you're a clumba. That's beautiful. Both animals are offered double, right? Mm-hmm. That holiness be not only in the soul but also in the body. It's interesting, huh? Oh God, you are my God, and I seek through my flesh pines and my soul thirst. Mm-hmm. So both are mentioned, the body and the soul. So you're getting in Thomas how you want to know about Christ, right? Yeah. Particle four. Particle four. Whither suitably the mother of God came to be purged in the temple. To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that unsuitably did the mother come to be purged in the temple. For purgation does not seem to be except from uncleanliness, huh? But in the Blessed Virgin there was no uncleanliness, huh? Therefore she did not have come forward to be purged at the temple. Moreover, as said Leviticus 12, the woman who has received the seed, huh, who brings forth a male, is unclean for what? Seven days. Seven days. And therefore it was commanded that she did not enter the holy place until were fulfilled the days of her purgation. But the Blessed Virgin brought forth a male without the male seed, huh? Therefore she should not have come to the temple to be purged, huh? Moreover, purgation from uncleanliness does not come about except through grace, huh? But the sacraments of the old law did not confer grace. But she rather had with herself the author of grace, huh? I mean, Christ, yeah. It was not therefore suitable that the Blessed Virgin come to, what, the temple to be purged, huh? That's a great respect that Thomas takes up all these things, huh? He never flinches about considering carefully these things, huh? So it's an intelligent consideration, a loving consideration, huh? Against this is the authoritative scripture in which it is said that being fulfilled the days of her purgation of Mary according to the law of what? Moses, huh? I answer it should be said that just as the fullness of grace from Christ was what? To her mother. To her mother. So it was fitting that the mother be conformed to the humility of the what? That's beautifully said, huh? For God gives grace to the humble, as is said in James 4, 6. And therefore, as Christ, although he was not obligated, you might say, to the law, right, huh? Wished or willed, nevertheless, circumcision and the other burdens, you might say, onerah, of the law to undergo, right? To demonstrating or showing or giving an example of humility and what? Obedience. And that he might confirm or approve of the law and that he might take the occasion of calumny away from the what? The Jews, huh? And on account of these very same reasons, the mother wished to fulfill the observance of the law to which she was not, what? Obligated. Obligated, huh? So to show humility and obedience, to approve the law, take away. What virtue? To the first there it should be said, that though the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness. She didn't have the communion. She didn't have the original sin, huh? She wished, nevertheless, to fulfill the observance of purgation, not an account of need, but an account of the precept of the law, right? And therefore, significantly, the evangelist said that being completed the days of purgation of her, according to the law, right, huh? For she, she couldn't say in herself, did not need, what? Purgation, huh? Now, in regard to that text from Leviticus, huh? To the second should be said that significantly, Moses seems to have spoken, right? To what? Accepting, right? From uncleanness, the mother of God, who did not bring forth, having received the male seed, huh? And therefore, it is clear that she was not obligated to the fulfilling of that precept, but she voluntarily, what? Observed the purgation, as has been said, and for the reasons that Christ was circumcised, huh? One on the other. To the third it should be said, about the old sacraments, not giving grace, right? To the third it should be said, that the legal sacraments of all, the sacraments of the law, did not purge from the uncleanness of guilt, right? Which comes about the grace. But they prefigured this purgation, right? They purged over by certain fleshly purgation from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as has been said in the second part. Either, however, and cleanness to the blessed virgin contract, and therefore she did not need to be, what? Purged, huh? St. Thomas said a different version of scripture. It's a curious verse in Luke. It says, and when the time for their purification according to the law. When the time came for their purification. So it doesn't mention Mary. No, her name is not in there, you may not. Yeah, and the fact that it's plural. And when the time for their purification. I've seen scholars comment on this. It's one of these things that scholars are kind of curious. Like, why isn't it plural? When the time for their purification. So Lord Haney makes something easy about that verse. And tries to show that it's not referring to Mary. What's your scholar? Uh, yes they do. I'm not calling. It's a clunker. Yeah, it says in the Greek here it does say that. They're two in one flesh, so. They're two in one flesh. They're two in one flesh. They're two in one flesh. They're two in one flesh. They're two in one flesh. They're two in one flesh. Who was the other? It hasn't been like two-in-one flesh. I know, I understand. The banana man never had a big girl. I know, but it's their flesh knows they're two-in-one flesh. I got a way out of it. But it's one of those things, I know the scholars talk about it. The church used to have something called the church in the women. Did you grow up with that? Do you remember that at all? Church in the women? Yeah, the woman that gave birth. She went through a ceremony before she was allowed back into the church together. Yeah, it was like a blessing, kind of. Now, the Vulgate has a singular, progressiones, aeus. Oh, is that right? Oh, there you go. But, does it say anything here about that? No, I've got the ordinary gloss I've got here, but does it say anything about it? I'd be interested to see what the Nova book had, because they often would follow. Well, for the New Testament, they tend to follow a better Greek manuscript, but they often respect a lot of the things in the Vulgate, because it's interesting, because it comes here in the Siddh Kantra, it puts in Maria. Oh, yeah, taking the aeus to refer you to it. Yeah, whether it's just kind of quoting from memory, or whether there were... You can look at, we have that Stuttgart-Volgi, which is a critical edition of Volgi, so it'll have other variations from the Vulgate manuscripts. Okay, so I'm curious in this translation, they put the quote from Scripture in italics, but they put Mary's name not in italics. Oh, I guess. It's probably what St. Thomas was doing. He made anything explicit, what's implicit. Okay, so let's go on to the next question here. Then we're not to consider about the baptism by which Christ was baptized. And because Christ was baptized by the baptism of John, first, we're not to consider about the baptism of John in general, and secondly, about the what? The baptism of Christ. Yes, that's the next question now, so we're going to have six articles here on the baptism of John, about the first six things are asked, huh? First, whether it was suitable that John should, what? Baptize, huh? Secondly, whether that baptism was from God. That's interesting. Third, whether it conferred, I guess? Grace, huh? Fourth, whether others besides Christ ought to have been baptized by that baptism, right? Fifth, whether that baptism ought to seize when Christ had been baptized, huh? Sixth, whether those baptized by the baptism of John were afterwards baptized, to be baptized by the baptism of what? Christ, huh? I never get, you know, on the Sunday sermons, they don't have much illumination about this baptism of John, huh? And as you get a little bit of heresy there, you know, it's been to realize his role, his mission, you know. Didn't know what his mission was. Oh, now I get it. Oh, me? I don't know how they come up with these things, but... To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that it was not suitable for John to baptize him. For every sacramental rite pertains to some law. Oh, that sounds like an interesting objection. But John did not introduce a new law, right? Therefore, unsuitable was it that he would introduce a new rite of baptism. Thank you. And of course, in a way, he just became into the new dispensation, didn't I? But let Thomas answer that. I don't know. He cares what I have to think. Moreover, John was sent by God in, what? Testimony, huh? Witness. As a, what? Prophet. According to that of Luke 1, you, boy, will be called the prophet of the most, what? I. But the prophets who were before Christ did not introduce a new rite, huh? But they enthused people to the observance of the legal rites, huh? This is clear, Malachi, huh? Be mindful of the law of Moses, huh? My servants. Therefore, neither did John ought John to have brought in a new rite of, what? Baptizing, huh? Moreover, where there is some superfluity of something, huh? Once you not add anything to it, right? But the Jews exceeded or excelled, went to excess in the superfluity of baptisms, yeah. As is said in Mark 7, that the Pharisees and all the Jews who, on the forehand or daily, washed their hands, they did not eat right. And from the form, if they were not baptized or washed, they did not eat. And many other things are weird about them, like the baptisms of cups and the bowls and the brass thing, yeah. Yeah, and lecterns or lecturers. Beds? That's from the land, yeah. And therefore, it was unsuitable that John should baptize, huh? Bringing coals to, what is it? But against this is the authority of Scripture, huh? Where setting forth beforehand the holiness of John, right? It joins that many went out to him, that they might be baptized in the, what, Jordan, huh? Okay, I answer, it should be said that it was suitable for John to baptize an account of four things, you know? You can get one hell of a sermon here when you get this in your head on that day when that text comes up, huh? First, because it was necessary that Christ be baptized by John in order that he might, what, consecrate baptism. As Augustine says upon John, he more sanctified the water than the water sanctified him, right? In fact, the water didn't sanctify him at all, right? But he sanctified the water and made it the instrument of baptism, right? The date of baptism. That's interesting. Second, that Christ might be made known, right, huh? Whence John himself says, John the Baptist himself says in John chapter 1, that he might be made known, to wit, Christ, right, in Israel. On account of that, I have come baptizing in, what, water. For the crowds coming together, right, he announced, what, Christ to the crowds coming together, running together. Con corinthibus. Which more easily was done thus than if he, what, he ran, he discoursed, huh? Through all of them, huh? As Chrysostom says, huh? Upon John, huh? They came to him. Here he goes again, Augustine, Chrysostom, and now comes Gregory in the next one, huh? Third, that he might accustom men to what? By his baptism. Yeah, to the baptism of Christ, huh? That's interesting, huh? Whence Gregory says in a certain homily, huh? That, therefore, John baptized, that observing the order of his, what, running before, right? Who came before Christ in being born, right? Might also come before in baptizing, right? And fourth, that leading men to penance, he prepared men to receiving worthily the baptism of, what, Christ. Whence Bede, now he's got Bede in there, huh? Yeah, four eyes. Whence Bede says that, as he guards... the catechumans not yet what baptized the what as much as the the teaching of the faith is profitable to them right so likewise was profitable the baptism of john before the baptism of christ i was preparing them somewhere like this because the one who thus what preached penance and uh announced it before in the baptism of christ and in the knowledge of truth which attracted them to the knowledge of truth which has appeared in the world thus the ministers of the church who first instruct afterwards correct the sins for them then in the baptism of christ they promise remission it's a beautiful thing the way thomas takes it from four different guys huh and brings it together right now um you know when you go and read the the greek i got the greek commentators you know bunch of them at home and uh check that from blackwells in london used to use the addition for a thousand dollars years ago greek professor thought i was amazed to see these you know with all these ones um but anyway um you know the great respect that porphyry's isagoge is held right in the tradition right it's kind of a remarkable thing right you know the and uh as they say uh albert has a commentary on it cardinal kajetan has got a commentary on the isagoge but you have you know uh ammonius hermias and the later greek commentators are you know have commented on the isagoge and of course uh great praetheists and the name of that so i mean it it it it it is in the tradition tremendous book right but what has he done all he's done is brought together things that aristotle said about genius and difference and property and so on but it's kind of scattering our stops not brought together like that he brings it all together right and he's made a real contribution right and i was mentioning how you know i was struck by thomas is using that and even showing that nothing is significantly of god and creatures right he regards uh as a complete division of names said significantly of many things right and uh well i was mentioning you know a little while ago it's very difficult teaching about uh relations of reason right and thomas you know will distinguish the relations of reason that you have in logic right but then the relations of reason that are sort of things in the real world right he distinguishes four kinds right but two of them explicitly refers to aristotle as is touching upon them and then the two from avicenna right he brings it together right and uh uh or or like my teacher monseigneur dion there you know i told you the time when he comes in and the larger professor says you got new mode you know to pose today you know and then monseigneur dion came in and gave his course well there's no text where where aristotle or or thomas explicitly say that right but um uh you can bring these things together and see that in a little more complete way right um but here you have the same sort of thing right where thomas gives you a teaching right that is uh uh scattered in a partial way among the among these great writers right and thomas brings it all together right huh you know so he does it even so i say with the relations of reason these difficult things right but that's the kind of thing that we can do you know if we really know thomas and aristotle we can bring things together in a way that illuminates something right even though i mean the seeds are all there yeah yeah he says to the first it should be said that's the objection that you know this is not a new what right he's introducing right in the law he says the baptism of john was not per se a sacrament right but as it were a sacramental is the word we still use today right so if you bless yourself going to church you know that's not a sacrament i don't think but i call it maybe sacramental right um it was something sacramental disposing for the baptism of what christ and therefore in some way it pertained to the law of christ as i was saying you know how thomas agree with me here but not over to the law of moses right okay so he doesn't say it's a it's a separate law between the law of moses and the law of christ he puts it the law of christ but not as a sacrament of the new law but as a sacramental but disposing for the the first of the fundamental sacrament there baptism okay let's that's good thomas yeah good good you know teacher said you got to read thomas with a grain of salt even thomas should be with a grain of salt he said it's easy to say you know friend of people at these conferences you know who uh oh yeah they really are something to agree with him you know that makes sense i really read it he said you would agree i got you there very carefully you know they just to the second it should be said that john was not only a prophet but more than a prophet huh as it said in matthew 11. for he was both the what the end of the law and beginning of the what seems like a continuous thing there right they're continuing and therefore it more pertained to him by word and work right to induce men to the law of christ and to the observance of the what old law right janice that's anything january just janice had that looking both ways you know but oh yeah yeah but he's looking more to the future i mean than the past now those baptisms of the pharisees were in any as uh ordered only him uh the cleansing of the flesh right yeah but the baptism of john was ordered to a spiritual cleansing right now for it induced men to sin so he said uh repent the kingdom of heaven is at hand right so baptism was take care with that okay you want to take a break