Tertia Pars
2. Why God Became Man: Summa III, Question 1, Articles 1–2
Class of 2008-09-18
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/002-why-god-became-man-summa-iii-question-1-articles-1-2/

[0:00] Up to the first article here. Now the first question. To the first one proceeds thus: It seems that it is not suitable for God to become flesh, right, a man.

[0:17] For since God from eternity was the very what essence of goodness, thus it was best for Him to be so, right, as He was from eternity, right? Couldn't be better. But God from eternity was without all flesh.

[0:46] Therefore, it is most suitable for Him not to become what, United to flesh. Could He be any better than He was from? Was eternally,

[1:00] He's the best he could be, right? Therefore, it is not suitable for God to become incarnate. Moreover, those things which differ at infinite distance, right, are unsuitably joined,

[1:23] as it would be unsuitable juncture is someone what painted, I suppose, an image in which to the human head was joined what, of a horse, huh?

[1:41] But God and flesh differ what, infinitely. Since God is most simple, but flesh composed, very much so, and especially human flesh. Therefore, it is unsuitable that God be what joined to flesh, right?

[2:04] But Shakespeare's great play there. All's Well That Ends Well ends well, right? You know, how could she, the commoner, marry the son of the duke? Right, they just don't do that thing, right? But to this sincerity, nothing imperative. This would be God, man. That's not suitable.

[2:31] Thus differs the body from the what highest spirit, as Alice from the highest goodness. huh? This seems like a Manichaean argument, huh? I think I haven't thought I'd even answer this argument. But altogether, it would be unsuitable that God, who is the highest goodness, assume what wickedness. Therefore, it is not suitable that the highest spirit, uncreated uncreated spirit, assume a body. huh?

[3:05] That's a Manichaean argument there. Moreover, it is unsuitable that the one who excels the great be contained in the least, and to whom belongs the care of great things to be transferred down to these little things. But God, who bears the care of the whole universe, the whole world, the whole universe is not sufficient to grasp. Therefore, it seems unsuitable that in the little body of the vagina and so on of infancy be hidden to whom what.

[3:46] The universe is not sought to be equal, and he'd be taken from his throne, you might say, of the whole universe, right, down to this little what

[4:00] in the abode of the virgin's womb. It says in the in the today, right? As Volusianus writes to Augustine, right? You know, just to see entirely super. Aren't you convinced now?

[4:20] But against this, it seems most suitable that through visible things be shown the invisible things of God. For for this the whole world is made. This is clear through those words of the apostle. Now that's an example of what Saint Paul being named what? Antonomasia. Romans one verse twenty, the invisible things of God to the things which are made being understood are seen. But as Damascene says in the beginning of the third book, then

[5:01] through the mystery of the incarnation is shown at once the goodness and the wisdom and the justice and the power of God. Right, virtue of God. His goodness because he did not despise the what. Infirmity of our what, plasm our makeup. Justice because what?

[5:26] Not. Yeah, he didn't want to overcome the devil by just power, right? But by justice, right? That he, you know, putting Christ to death, right, or instigating this in a way, was what, overstepping his bounds. huh Neque vi rapuit et morte hominem right, not by violence, as the word right. Wisdom because of a most what difficult situation, he found a what most suitable solution. Of power or virtue infinite, because nothing is more than that God become man.

[6:10] Imagine that is what Thomas brings out more in the Summa Contra Gentiles, right? But this is the greatest thing that God has made. The word made flesh, right? That was the greatest making that there was, It will be. Therefore, it was suitable for God to be what? Come flesh. Yeah.

[6:33] Well, how's Thomas going to answer this? I don't know. He's going to think he's got himself in all this thing. Okay. The answer should be said that to each thing is suitable that which belongs to it by reason of its own what nature,

[6:55] just as it is suitable to man to reason. Now get that into your head. Because this belongs to him in so far as he what is rational. In so far as he has reason, according to his nature.

[7:13] But the very nature of God is what goodness, huh? This is clear through Dionysius in the first chapter about the divine names. Whence whatever pertains to the thought, the notion of of good is suitable to what God, huh? It's suitable for God to be good, I guess, huh? Who could disagree with that? He's goodness itself.

[7:46] It belongs, however, to the notion of the good that it communicate itself to what others, as is clear through Dionysius in the book on the Divine Names, the fourth chapter. Bonum est diffusivum sui you know that thing.

[8:09] Whence to the notion of the highest good, right? That's the fifth thing Thomas shows about God's goodness in Summa. It pertains that in the highest way he communicates himself to what Creatures. creatures, right?

[8:29] Which most of all comes about through this that he thus joins a created nature, right, to himself, so that there is what one person from these three: the Word, the flesh, and the soul, right?

[8:49] As Augustine says in the third, thirteenth book of On the Trinity. Whence it is manifest that it was suitable for God to become what? Incarnate.

[9:03] So you convinced by that argument. He shouldn't become. If he's so good, then he could have become an angel too. Became himself even more. Well, Thomas. Well, we're not talking about you know

[9:34] the greatest of the creatures in that sense, you know, but his joining the creature to himself, right? But this is going to be a separate question. Why he became a man rather than an angel, right? You'll say, better on, it's better on. But did he bestow upon human nature a great good by assuming human nature?

[10:14] Could he have bestowed, you know, a greater good than that upon human nature? Because no matter how much grace he gave, say, some human being, some particular human being, that would never equal the grace of the union.

[10:37] So it's interesting that Thomas does in terms of simply of the goodness of God. That's not all that can be said, but that's the fundamental place where he begins.

[10:55] Okay, now what you call the first objection here huh Because he's got it by his objections, and then he's most beautifully determined the matter. as Aristotle would say?

[11:12] Now should understand this in the sense that God became better by becoming man. That's kind of where the objection is going, right? He couldn't be better than he was. Okay.

[11:27] To the first, therefore, should be said that the mystery of the incarnation is not fulfilled by this, that God, in some way, is what changed from his status, right, in which he was what from eternity, but through this, that in a new way he united himself to the creature, right? Or rather, and as you better say, it to himself, right? Okay.

[11:58] It is, however, suitable that the creature, which by reason of itself is changeable, right, does not always have itself in the same way, right?

[12:13] And therefore, as a creature, when first it was not at all, right, was produced in being, it was suitable that, before when it was not united to God, afterwards it was what united to Him, right? Okay.

[12:34] Now you know it's a very simple and inadequate comparison I make. but. I think it's kind of interesting. And a couple again here, but

[12:47] you take this point right here, right? We say that's the person, right? And the line represents the divine nature. Okay. Now. If the human nature was not what joined to that person, right, then you'd have this human person right here, okay. But if I draw a line like this,

[13:16] has this been changed at all? This first line or the end point? No, but the second line has been drawn to what? That point, huh? So at this point, what's called A, is beginning of line B and beginning of line C, right? So this one person, which is the Word of God, it now subsists both in divine nature and in the what? Yeah, this has added nothing to the divine nature at all, right?

[13:46] And drawn to the divine what personality, right? But this is just created by itself without being drawn to him. There would have been another person there, and you'd have the heresy and the Nestorians and so on, Now, second objection, is, so we can show you,

[14:21] these are joined things that are infinitely apart, huh? Doesn't sound a good idea, does it? Yeah, yeah. The second should be said that being united to God in unity of a person was not suitable to the human flesh by the condition of its nature, right?

[14:49] But it was nevertheless suitable to God that, according to the what infinite excellence of His goodness, united it to Himself for the what salvation of man, right?

[15:10] In other words, it was the mercy of God, right? I suppose, huh? It wasn't justice to unite human nature to Him, right? Wasn't justice. Human nature didn't deserve that.

[15:25] That's it. Wasn't suitable to human nature to have such a great what benefit conferred upon it, right? But it was suitable to His infinite mercy to do this, on. Okay?

[15:41] So it comes to being some truth in objection, right? To bring out the truth that objection doesn't take into account, okay? Now the third objection. That was the Manichaean one, wasn't it? Okay.

[16:05] To the third, it should be said that whatever other condition, by which any creature different from the Creator, by the wisdom of God is what instituted, and is ordered to the goodness of God. For God, on account of his own goodness, since it is uncreated, unchangeable, bodiless, produces creatures that are mobile and what? And by the matter, yeah. And likewise, the evil of what punishment, but the justice of God is introduced on account of the what glory of God, huh?

[16:50] But the evil of guilt is committed by receding from the art of the divine wisdom, and from the order of the divine what goodness.

[17:04] And therefore, is suitable for him to assume created nature that is changeable, bodily, and subject to punishment, but is not however suitable for him to assume the evil of what? Yeah. So assumed everything we have except our sinful, our sin.

[17:29] Now the fourth argument is easily solved, right? Didn't cease to be God by becoming man, right? To the fourth, it should be said, as Augustine responds in the Epistle to Volusian, that Christian teaching doesn't have this. That God is thus infused into human flesh, that he what deserts, huh? Or loses? Abandons or loses the care of the governance of the universe.

[18:00] Or to that what little body, right? As it were, contracted, he is transferred, huh? Lost his greatness. For this thinking or sense is of men who are unable to think of anything except what bodies, right? They can't transcend their imagination.

[18:31] Aristotle, in the fourth book of of Natural Hearing, there says that it's a common opinion of the Greeks, right? Whatever is must be somewhere, If it isn't somewhere it doesn't exist. So to be in place is the property of what is, And there's bodies that are in place, so everything is a body. They can't transcend that, right? So when my soul leaves my body, will it be somewhere?

[18:58] someplace? That's kind of hard for me to think about. How can it be and not be in some place, right? Okay, God, however not in size, but in virtue is great, right? Whence the magnitude of his power, what has no what straightening or listening in the narrow place, right?

[19:41] Is not therefore incredible that the word of man going forth is heard at the same time by many and the whole by all. That the word of God, being permanent, is everywhere. as a whole Kind of kind of helpful there, right Whence There's nothing unsuitable follows God being incarnate. Now, as he remains God, right? Doesn't cease to be God because he becomes a man.

[20:12] Some people thought, you know, he becomes flesh meant like what the sphere becomes a cube, right? The sphere becomes a cube is no longer a cube, right? I mean, a sphere. That's not the way God becomes a man. He remains God, and therefore, everything that pertains to God pertains to him. Should we look another article or what? Okay.

[20:36] Now, to the second one proceeds thus: It seemed there was not necessary for the reparation of the human race for the Word of God to become flesh.

[20:49] For to the Word of God, since He is perfect God, nothing of power, right, came to Him through the flesh assumed. He didn't get some power he didn't have by assuming flesh, did he? He's all powerful. If, therefore, the Word of God repaired

[21:12] nature, also without the assumption of flesh, right, he would be able to what repair it? As we mentioned before, these two senses are necessary. They're particularly relevant to this: that without which the end cannot be reached, and that without which the end cannot be reached well, right? So it's necessary to understand those senses are necessary. Now, in philosophy, sometimes you say, "Is logic necessary for the philosopher?

[21:52] " Or can you philosophize without logic? You can philosophize, but not well. Yeah, yeah. So it's necessary to philosophize well, logic. So Albert the Great says, you know, the early Greeks, you know, before Aristotle and Plato, made many mistakes because they didn't have logic, right? You can philosophize without logic, right? But you can't philosophize well without logic.

[22:27] Okay. So, in what sense was necessary for Christ to become man, right? Which of those two senses? Moreover, for the reparation of the human nature, which had collapsed through—that's a good description of us, huh? Through sin, nothing would other would seem to be required than that man satisfy for sin, right?

[22:55] But God does not require from man more than He's able, right? And since he is more prone to what taking mercy than showing mercy than to punishing, just then as he imputes to man the act of sin, so it seemed that he would impute to him the washing out or the deleting of the sin by the what contrary act.

[23:27] It was not therefore necessary to the preparation of human nature for the Word of God to become what flesh. Moreover, to the salvation of man, especially pertains that God be what we hear it. once in Malachi, chapter one, verse six: If I am the Lord, where is my fear? If the Father, where is my honor? I am your father and mother.

[24:02] But from this men begin more reverence God that they consider him to be elevated above all things and remote from the what senses of men. Whence, in Psalm one twelve, it says, "Excelsus super omnes gentes Dominus, raised above all the nations, all the gent nations, and above the heavens, all the natural things. Even is his glory right. And after that is said, who is like our God?

[24:38] When the fourth Latin consulate says, you cannot know the likeness of the creature to God without a greater what unlikeness. This is one place where Scripture says, you know, who's like God? Because the likeness is so distant, right? It seems more that they are not unlike, not like the

[25:02] which pertains to reverence. Therefore, it seems not suitable to human salvation that God becomes like us through the assumption of flesh, right? That's going to diminish our regarding God as above us. Not

[25:20] interesting objection. But against this, that by which the human race was freed from perdition or loss is necessary for human salvation. But the mystery of divine incarnation is of this sort, according to that of John chapter three verse sixteen. For God thus so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that all who believe in him will not perish but would have what eternal life. And there you seem to be speaking of the incarnation as what the way to get to eternal life, right?

[26:05] So you could put it under God is the end, right? Therefore, it's necessary for the human salvation, for safety, for God to become what flesh, right?

[26:21] Now Thomas is not going to give the whole teaching about this, so you're going to have to go to the fifth book of what wisdom for that, right? He's going to give these two senses in terms of the end. I answer it should be said that to some end something is said to be necessary in two ways.

[26:44] In one way, without which something is not able to be, as food is necessary for the conserving preservation of human life. You got to eat

[27:02] if you want to live. But another way through what or by which something better and more suitably arises at the end, as a horse is necessary to journey. I hope he gets a horse here or something. I'm going to get home, right? I can get home without a horse, but yeah, you see the difference between those two senses, huh? Now, is exemplifying with what logic, right?

[27:38] Now to know the conclusion of a syllogism, do you have to know the premises? Which sense of necessary is that? Yeah, you can't know the conclusion without the premises. Who's

[27:58] logic necessary to philosophize? What sense of necessary is that? Second sense, yeah. So as Dicconic said, Thomas was a most humble student of Aristotle, right? It's amazing the way he pulls out the things what he needs from Aristotle.

[28:20] The thing about reading Thomas, you read Thomas in a way you're reading Aristotle and you're reading Augustine and you're reading Boethius and you're reading all these other guys, Albert and so on, right? And like the Cajetan says there in the beginning of the Summa, he so reverenced the what fathers of the Church, he seems to inherited the mind of them all, right? So in a way you're reading all these guys and you read him.

[28:43] When I read modern philosophy, I have the impression I'm reading this one guy. I don't read anybody else. I never had that sense, right?

[28:56] I never understood that that distinction that keeps showing up where people say, well, you know, I'm Augustinian not mystic. Yeah. No, I never understood that to this day I saw I was reading some of the things of of Benedict the Sixteenth, right? And one of the things, one of the speeches I think it was. I'm looking at just into some of the speeches. But it's one of the universities there in Rome that he gave the speech, so it's a little more informal and so on.

[29:26] And I think there was kind of a question period. What did you particularly enjoy when you were, you know, a student and so on? And it was Augustine, right? And then he he liked those Bonaventure, yeah, yeah. So you can see kind of the Castell's mind, right? If I say Paul the Six or maybe Pius the Tenth, it'd be more Thomas, you know. But he didn't mention Thomas.

[29:50] He just said Augustine and Bonaventure because the two, I mean, it's other Franciscans too, but he gets certain uh thing of what. Caught his attention, right?

[30:05] Of course, Augustine, you know the Confessions. you know, it's really a work that's sort of in Thomas, but it's probably the most read work of Augustine, and it impresses people the most.

[30:28] Okay. So he says, in the first way, for God to be incarnate was not necessary for the reparation of human nature. For God, through His omnipotent power, was able to repair human nature in many other ways.

[30:57] But in the second way, it was necessary for God to be what? To the reparation of human nature. Whence Augustine says in the fifteenth book of the Trinity, we shall show not that another way was possible to God that was lacking,

[31:21] which, but whose power all things are equally subject, but that a more suitable way, right, of healing our misery, right, there was not, huh?

[31:38] Now, something we might compare the arguments he gives in the Summa Contra Gentiles with the ones here, but let's look at the ones here and then maybe I'll. They're almost the same, but it's a little difference in the order and so on. I think in the Summa Contra Gentiles about eight reasons given. I think here you have ten, right?

[31:59] But he divides it into two. No more suitable way to move man towards the good, and no more suitable way to move away from the the bad, right?

[32:13] And this is able to be considered as regards the promotion of man to the good. First, as regards the end, which is more made certain from the fact that what one believes, God Himself, what speaking, huh? Whence Augustine says in the eleventh book in the City of God that man more confidently might walk to truth, truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed man, constituted and founded what faith, huh?

[32:46] So you have God Himself become a man, teaching the like a being, right? That first reason in terms of what faith, huh? Second, as regards hope, which through this is most of all what aroused, now. Whence Augustine says in the thirteenth book of the Trinity, "For nothing was so necessary to arousing our hope than to be shown how much God loved us."

[33:27] What greater what indication of this is there, than that the what Son of God would what, deign to undergo a consortium of our nature, sharing of our nature. So it's a sign of love. The first, you know, we did Thomas previously on love, didn't we, Thomas? The first effect of love is to unite, right? So if united our nature to Himself, the greatest sign of of love, right?

[33:55] Then this, huh? And here he takes it as what, strengthening our hope, because we hope in the one who what, loves us. Like we hope in our parents because we think they love us, okay? Now the third theological virtue, third as regards charity, which most of all by this is what aroused, huh? Cited, whence Augustine says in the book, the catechizandis rudibus, huh? So this is the first catechetical instructions based on his translated title, but you know the rough guys, you know.

[34:38] And his friend had asked Augustine, you know, what what do you suggest me to do? And and these raw candidates, well, you you narrate what God has done for us, right, with the view to showing God's love for us, huh? What greater cause is there the coming of the Lord, than that God would show His love to us, right? Now there's nobody like that cool we had in the previous article there, right?

[35:05] God so loved the world, right? He sent His only begotten Son. Afterwards, he subjoins, "If we were slow to love, right, at least let us not be slow to what return love, huh? " Let me develop that some in the course too, remember, Thomas, and Father Augustine talked about that, huh? Augustine, they were saying, you know, in the other passage we had in that course that nothing arouses love for us more for another person than the experience of their love for us, right?

[35:40] So God's love for us arouses both hope and love in us, right? Seems to be what Pope Benedict does a lot. Fourth, as regards correct operation, right, correct doing, in which for us he gave us an example, right. Now I just love this this thing that he quotes from Augustine because it's a little bit of dialectic, right? You say this, there's this dialectic, this that dialectic, then you untie, right?

[36:21] The two. He does number these things from Augustine. Man should not be followed, right? Although he can be seen, right? God should be followed, but he could not be seen.

[36:39] That therefore, they might be shown to man both someone who can be seen by man and whom man should follow. God became a what? Man, okay. So we all need example, right? And Heisenberg talks about that, right? You're the scientist, huh? Coming under the influence of man like Niels Bohr, right? You know, and you're thinking. So you need you need someone you can see to follow, but the men you see aren't worthy of being followed at least entirely, right?

[37:14] God should be followed, but he can't be seen. Well, you got a problem there, right? Well, God becomes man and solves it. It's beautiful, though. It's a beautiful way. And let's say we read Thomas, you read Augustine too, right? It's beautiful what Augustine says there. In his sermon on the what? Birth of the Lord, huh? Christmas, huh? What a wonderful Christmas sermon that would have been not to hear Augustine and those things, huh?

[37:46] And then fifth, last but not least, as regards the full partaking of divinity, which is truly the beatitude of man in the end of human life, and this was what given to us through the humanity of Christ. For Augustine says in his certain sermon on the birth of the Lord, God was made man so that man might become what? God. Some other saints have said the same thing, right?

[38:16] God became man so man might become God. It was full participation, right, of the divine nature. It was just you know you just kind of kind of chew these things over and roll them over in your mind, you know. But it's not too hard to remember those five because you remember faith, hope, and charity, and how he argues, and then doing, right, and then finding the what?

[38:40] The end there, the full participation of divinity. Now the other side, huh? Similarly to the removal or to flight from evil, right? First, through this, that man would be instructed, lest he prefer what the devil to himself, right? Well, the devil is more intelligent than we are, right? It's a superior thing, right?

[39:18] And then we might wait, so man would not venerate him who is the author of what sin. Now, I was thinking about this abortion business. You know how, over the world now, it's so prevalent. You know, and put into law in all these places and so on. I wonder if there's something really diabolical about that, right? Because the devil hates us, right? Because he's lost and we are still capable of it, right?

[39:48] What greater satisfaction would his hate and envy of us have than to have us kill our own offspring, huh? And and you know, put in there as well as our own. uh. uh Salvation quite a You know So also a rage against the incarnation, as a mother motherhood. Yeah

[40:13] See I just don't think in terms of the devil. But thinking about it recently, it's come to my mind that there's something very diabolical about this acceptance of it. Diabolic cultures always demanded human sacrifice. Often it was the children, like wallock. Yeah. And all that stuff. Yeah. The strongest bond that exists is between a mother and a child. So the symbol of bond that strong requires almost something diabolical.

[40:36] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Common enemy of man, as Shakespeare calls him. Yeah. Now, how does this help us to avoid referring the devil to ourselves? Once Augustine says in the 13th book about the Trinity, when God what was thus able to join human nature, that there became what one person. Those proud malignant spirits, right, would no longer dare to what put themselves before man because they did not have what flesh.

[41:21] Yeah. You see how this would kind of especially be appealing. This preferring the devil to yourself because he doesn't have flesh, because you are what you know, if you're a Manichaean right? Because flesh you think of as evil, right? You know.

[41:43] But that there lends a certain piquancy to John's way of speaking. is by synecdoche, right, he became flesh, right? Oh, he down to the flesh. The devil doesn't have.

[41:59] Yeah. Secondly, because by this we are instructed how great is the dignity of human nature, lest we what stain it by sinning, right? Once Augustine says in the book on true religion, God showed us how high a place among creatures human nature has. In this, that to men, in a true man he appeared. And then the one from Leo Papa, Leo the Great, in his sermon on Nativity, recognizes a Christian your dignity, right, and being made a what share of the divine nature, to not what in your old vileness degenerate, right?

[42:51] Okay. We'll go back to that. Third, because to taking away the what Presumption of man. Now that's more what Presumption is another name for pride, right? We stated presumption pride. But I think it's going to be more explicit about that. The grace of God, with no merits preceding, right? Then Christ the man is commended to us, right? As is said in the thirteenth book of the Trinity.

[43:33] It's not the original, right? You know the beautiful the beautiful passage in Aristotle where he says you should try to say some things better than our predecessors said them, right? Another things you should try to say as well as they said them. I think that Thomas, you know, quotes Augustine, you know, saying it in a way that it couldn't be really improved upon. Why should I try to improve upon what can't be improved upon, right?

[44:05] It's like Einstein said about some pieces of Mozart, you know, you couldn't make them more perfect because perfect isn't perfectable. Well, the fourth one is both the third and the fourth in a way attached with pride. But here you have the word for pride, superbia,

[44:38] haughtiness, because the pride of man, which is the maximum, the greatest, impediment, lest he what adhering God to so great a humility of God is what argued against, you might say, and can be what healed, right? As Augustine says, huh? You see, in the we talked about the chapters there where Christ is preparing the apostles, right? Thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and in St. John. But Thomas divides into three.

[45:16] Right, he first prepares them by giving his example, right? Then he prepares them by his words in chapters fourteen through sixteen, and then by praying for them, right? And I sometimes compare that, you know, to what a father has to do, right? The first responsibility is to give a good example to his children. That's very necessary to give an example to your children, and then as they get a little bit older, you know, instructing them in words as to what's what, which is do what you shouldn't do.

[45:49] And you can't stop there. Then you got to pray they will what profit from your example and from your words, right? And those three things, huh? But the example that Christ gives there, you know, watching the feet is first an example of humility, right? Then at the end of that chapter, he talks about loving.

[46:10] As I have loved you, right? What's interesting, you get the humility, an example of love there, but they go together in a sense. You can't have really love without humility, huh? Humility is, in some sense, a foundation for the other virtues, huh? Okay.

[46:39] I think those are very interesting reasons that. But it kind of shows the the extent of of pride and how difficult it is to move it, right? Augustine talks about the sin of self-love, possessing me you know, and he can't get rid of it. It's like so so deeply rooted in them, right? It's a comparison, you know. You know how the worst private trees got the roots out, you know, and so on.

[47:03] And then you see, like I was saying about John the Twenty Third, there you can see how he's, you know, always trying to to do that, or Saint Teresa of Avila, her autobiography, and so on. But it needs something as radical as God becoming, you know, emptying Himself, taking on the form of a slave, and becoming obedient even to death, and so on. That's quite an example of humility, right?

[47:28] That's an example of humility. Because if we need that, that we're so taken up with ourselves. Fifth, to liberating man from what slavery, which as Augustine says in 13th Book of the 20th, it was what. But it had to be this way that the devil, right, would be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ, huh? Okay. So he overstepped his authority. He has some authority over us sinners because we're under original sin, right?

[48:12] But Christ was in no way under original sin. So in attacking Christ, he overstepped his authority, and therefore is justly deprived of his kingdom. You know, somebody might.

[48:31] Okay. Now, what's his fifth thing here? Well, knows Thomas gives the same kind of dialectic that he had from Augustine above, right? For a pure man could not make satisfaction for the whole human race, huh? But God is not one who who satisfies; didn't do any sinning. When it's necessary that Jesus Christ be both what God and man, right, huh? So that as man he can what be satisfying for the sin of man, but as God he can be efficacious in his satisfying for the sin of man.

[49:12] So infirmity receives from what power and from majesty humility, so that what is what suitable to remedies, one and the same mediator of God and man,

[49:29] could die from the one from being a man and rise again from the what other right. Unless he was true God, he could not bring remedy. Unless he was true man, he would not give what example right. A little bit of the same kind dialectic he had above, right? To stop giving example.

[49:51] He says there are many other utilities which follow upon this above the comprehension of the sons of man. Now, in the first objection is saying, "Well, God could do this without that, right? It wasn't necessary. He could do it because he didn't get any power from becoming man, right? He didn't have already; he was omnipotent, right?" Thomas says, "Well, to the first, therefore, it should be said that that reason proceeds according to the first way of necessity, without which one cannot arrive at an end, right?

[50:29] So Thomas is not claiming here that it was necessary, absolutely, you might say, for man, for God to become man to redeem us, right? But there's no more suitable way of doing it, right, than that, as the arguments in the body of the article would seem to indicate, right?

[50:50] So the first argument is is saying, 'Well, God could do it without this, right? ' So Thomas is admitting that, right? But that's not necessity; he's defending in the body of the article.

[51:03] Okay. Second one, well, God doesn't demand more of us than we're capable of, right? Thomas says to the second, it should be said that some satisfaction can be said to be sufficient in two ways. In one way, perfectly, right, because it is what worthy to a certain what equality, right, to recompense for the fault committed, right, and thus the satisfaction of a pure man could never be what sufficient because the whole human nature was corrupted through what sin.

[51:46] Nor the good of any person, or even of many, would be able to what recompense by equality for the destruction of the detriment of the whole of nature, right?

[52:01] Also, because a sin against God committed has a certain infinity from the infinity of the divine majesty, right? For an offense is more grave the more great is the one in whom it is done, right? So if I kick the king, I get more trouble. I kick you, right? Okay. But God is of infinite dignity, right? So the kind of infinity of this, right? Whence is necessary for a suitable satisfaction that the action of the one satisfying have an infinite efficacy as being of God and man, right?

[52:41] Now another way a satisfaction can be sufficient imperfectly, according as it is what accepted by someone, right, and was contented with this, even though it's not what condigna. And in this way, the satisfaction of a pure man is sufficient. And because everything imperfect presupposes something perfect from which it is sustained, hence it is that the satisfaction of every pure man, purely a man, has satisfaction, or, efficacy, and satisfaction of Christ.

[53:18] Again, you could say we cannot satisfy what perfectly without a God-made man, right? That's the kind of necessity he's talking about in the body article.

[53:36] Now, what's the third objection that he lessened his majesty, right? All right, huh? To the third, it should be said that God, by assuming flesh, did not lessen his what greatness, huh? And consequently, did not lessen the reason for reverence to him, right? Which is actually increased by the growth of our what knowledge of him, huh? For from the fact that he approached us, or he wished to approach us through assumption of flesh, right?

[54:14] He more what draws us to knowing him, right? That's a pretty good answer, I think. to that third objection, huh? Looking at Theresa Davila's biography the other day again, and I remember she had a lot devotion to Saint Joseph, right? But I'd forgotten, you know, how much Saint Joseph was guiding her, huh? And she's very insistent upon the fact that you should do the same, you know, make this make this special appeal to to Joseph, huh?

[55:05] I just I remember, you know, from the foundations, the last thing I'd read of her, you know, she's all these monasteries or convents she's setting up, you know, she's named after Joseph, huh? But it was a very vivid thing there in the first few chapters there about Joseph helping her, huh? And she, you know, I always remember what De Koninck said, you know, he said that now that we had the Marian century, you know, and these great mysteries of Mary have been clarified, maybe there'll be some mysteries of Joseph clarified next, you know, as in divine providence and having these mysteries be clarified in a certain order, huh?

[55:43] And so after the mysteries about Christ and the ones of Mary, and then find the ones of Joseph, you know, so maybe Teresa of Avila will be coming back in this respect too, you know, that she's an early advocate of special devotion to Joseph, huh?

[56:02] It's kind of fascinating to see her attention to him, you know. Or something.