Tertia Pars
17. Summa III q.5 a.1–2: Did the Son of God Take a True, Earthly Body? (with notes on the Compendium of Theology)
Class of 2008-12-04
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/017-summa-iii-q-5-a-1-2-did-the-son-of-god-take-a-true-earthly/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, pray for us. Help us to understand what you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:26] I noticed that the Enchiridion symbol arm that's on the internet. Have you seen that? Oh no, I didn't. Yeah. In fact, I took out a couple of things there in the Trinity. There, you know, I was going to reproduce you with my darn machine. Reproduce the machine was, you know, leaving things kind of fuzzy, you know. But it's interesting. He was using one of these texts from the Compendium He was using the expression, you know, talking about the divine substance and what's common to the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

[0:58] Everything is ad se, right? Hm. While the Father is only ad filium right? Hm. And the Son is only ad ad patrem, right? And the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. But I think this expression ad se is really to be understood for the absolute, but understood negatively, right? Because nothing is really towards itself. So that's what he said. But it's really in meaning not towards another, right?

[1:32] It's just like sometimes you know they'll say that an accident is a thing that exists in another as a subject. Then they'll say substance exists in itself. Well, even where Aristotle shows in the fourth book of the natural hearing that nothing is really in itself. And so you can understand it maybe negatively, right? Something is in itself, meaning not in another, right? And so when Thomas kind of defined substance, he'll say, "In a res cui convenit esse, non in alio, right?

[2:08] A thing to which it belongs to be not in anyone, nothing." Just for the fun of it, you know, reading the compendium of theology, right? Of course, when Thomas takes up, you know, the incarnation, and then he takes up the things that Christ did, you know, that's as far as he goes in the compendium. It doesn't go into the sacraments as you would do in the two sumas.

[2:39] But just as far as kind of the articles of faith are concerned, huh? But interesting things in there. He's talking about how, with the words of Saint Paul, how the death of our Lord is freeing us from our sinfulness, huh? And it, in a way, represents this, his his death, separation from his body, right? Separation from the mortal part of us. And then the resurrection, of course, has a different effect.

[3:14] It's resurrecting our soul as well as, our body. But then Thomas distinguishes three ways in which the death of our Lord is a cause of our redemption, remission of our sins. And one, he says, as an instrument of his divinity. Another way, as an exemplar, that's another kind of causality, and then it merits our thing. But then he comes to resurrection. In what way is that a cause of our resurrection of our soul and our body?

[3:52] Well, also as an instrument of his divinity, right? Same kind of causality. Also as an exemplar, right? But he says not meriting, because Christ is no longer able to merit. He's now completely what? A comprehensor, right? Not a viator. He's no longer on the way, right? Once he resurrects, he's can't merit anything any more than the saints can merit. Kind of interesting, huh? Another beautiful passage there in the in the compendium there.

[4:26] He's talking about quoting Saint Paul there. Where Christ is said to be the primogenitus, the firstborn of those resurrecting of those resurrecting. And then he says, "Well, what sense does he primo first? " And then going back, you know, to the five senses that Aristotle has, he says, "Well, first in time, first as a what causes before an effect, and first in dignity, because he rises more glorious even than we all rise, huh?

[4:57] So it's, beautiful the way he uses the the different senses of before in Aristotle to unfold the truth of what I guess that Saint Paul is saying.

[5:10] From the compendium of theology, right? In the compendium of theology, Thomas is writing that for his companion, right? Who wanted a a shorter thing to carry around that he could constantly refer to. And Thomas there, like he does in his catechetical instructions in Naples at the end of his life, like Augustine does in the Enchiridion, he divides it according to faith, hope, and charity. And the part on faith is complete.

[5:38] The part on hope he began but didn't finish. That's really kind of like a commentary on our father. And then the part on charity is he never got to. But that first part is beautiful. Interesting things in there, but.

[5:56] It doesn't go into as many questions as he does here, but sometimes he says things a little different, and kind of one mind delights in that. We

[6:07] may teach our custodians to come down the hall there, and I meant my little thing where you keep your books in, you know, on Twain. You know, he's got some new thought, you know, and it's kind of interesting to see that, right? So it's a dumbest thing, right? Just look that way. Well, my son Mark has sent me some interesting thing. I have to maybe show it to you sometime, but I guess there was a guy in one of the Eastern European countries, there, the communist countries, who was kind of a chief abortionist, right?

[6:44] Yeah, we heard about. Yeah, go ahead. Did you hear about? So one had some sort of vision of St. Thomas. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, he had he had a dream, and there was like a field with little children and so on. When they saw him, they all started running away. Okay. And then there was this monk here, right? And they kept talking to him, and he didn't know Thomas Aquinas was, but the monk, you know, told him he was doing wrong.

[7:09] It's there, right? And he said, "Who are you?" "Thomas Aquinas." So it's kind of interesting, huh? So we guess Thomas, you know, is in proximity to our terrible situation. Yeah.

[7:25] So up to question five, I guess, huh? That's where we left off. I know what Thomas is doing here. Just look for a moment back at the the preamble to this particular part of it, huh?

[7:44] Look at the beginning of question four, there, right? In what we're in, kind of now. Then we're not to consider about the union on the side of what he took on, right?

[8:05] And about this, we're not to first consider those things that were taken on by the Word of God. Secondly, the things taken on with them, which are the perfections, right, and the defects, right, being the mortal flesh and so on. And then he subdivides the first part: the Son of God took on human nature and its parts. Whence about this first thing, there is a threefold consideration: first, as regards what human nature itself, and that's what question four is about, I guess.

[8:42] Secondly, as regards what its parts, and that's what the one we'll be looking at today is, and third, as regards the order in which he took these on. And that will be the probably the following question, question six. Okay, now we're up to question five. Then we're not to consider about the taking on of the parts of human nature, and about this four things are asked: whether the Son of God ought to assume a true body.

[9:16] There's a history behind all these things. There's someone who always denied these things, like the Manichaeans or somebody. Secondly, whether he ought to assume an earthly body, to wit, one with flesh and what blood.

[9:33] Third, whether he should assume a what soul? Because some said, well, no. It says the word was made flesh. There's no mention about a soul there, right? And the the the word was in place of the soul in other heresies of this sort. And third, whether he ought to assume a what understanding? Right? Doesn't he have enough understanding without taking on a human understanding too? Yeah. Okay,

[10:03] or you could take intellectum to mean also the understanding soul, right? The kind of soul that was understanding. Because some said that the word was in place of the soul. Some finally had to admit that he had a soul, but they admitted that like kind of an animal soul, and in place of the intellect, he had the word, right? So all these things Thomas is going to belabor, right?

[10:30] To the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Son of God did not assume a true body, for it is said in the Epistle to the Philippians, chapter two, verse seven, that he was made in the likeness of man. That seems like he's not really a man, but he had the likeness of man.

[10:55] But what is in truth should not be said by likeness. Therefore, the Son of God did not assume a true what body. Of course, in that case, I wouldn't have a true human body because I'm like you. Two arms, two legs, and so on.

[11:18] Moreover, the taking on of a body should in no way detract from the dignity of his divine nature. For Leo the Pope, I suppose that's Leo the Great, right? In his sermon about the Nativity, that his glorification or his glory neither what consumed the lower nature, nor did the taking on of it lessen the higher nature.

[11:53] But this pertains to the dignity of God that he to be altogether separated from a body. Therefore, it seems that through the assumption or taking on, God was not united to a what body.

[12:12] The third objection: Moreover, signs ought to correspond to the things signified by them. But the appearances of the Old Testament, which were signs and figures of the apparition of Christ, were not according to the truth of the body, but according to a imaginary vision. As is clear in Isaiah chapter six, I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, right? Therefore, it seems that the appearance of the Son of God in the world was not according to the truth of the body, but only according to the imagination.

[12:53] And that's, I guess, what the Manichaeans among others, said. Fictitious. But against this is what Augustine says in the book of the eighty-three questions.

[13:08] If the body of Christ was a phantasm, ah, an image, ah, then Christ what? Deceived, deceived huh It's a term. I mean, "fefellit I couldn't find in my little Cassell's dictionary. I was looking too, but I didn't know the what's the word that's from? fefellit fallere What was in mind? I just have the. It says it's uncommon, but you can fail by be disappointed with. But that maybe is not a medieval.

[13:41] And if he deceived, he is not truth, right? But Christ is truth itself, ah. Therefore, his body was not a phantasm, an image, right? And thus it is clear that he assumed a true what body, right?

[14:03] What does Thomas do in response, Alan? basically he results he rests upon authority, right? So he says, "I answer. It should be said that, as is said in the book about church dogmas, right. " Incidentally, at the bottom, my footnote says "inter opuscula Augustini." I can't find that in the works of Augustine. Refers to Gennadius. Yeah, yeah. This is chapter two, inter opp aug,

[14:39] and I looked, you know, and the one you can get on internet there all the Latin of Augustine's not. This one gives. Does it give the referencing mean meaning? No, this one gives the referencing meaning, so we can look that up. Okay. Okay.

[15:00] So it is said anyway in this book, which is a collection of you know must be authoritative texts. He was born. The son of God was born. None what. In thought only, right? Putative, as it were, having an imaginative body, but a what true body, right? So Thomas is answering it basically by authority, right? Which is the strongest argument, you know, theology. But nevertheless, for the authority, he's going to give some what reasons why this is reasonable.

[15:36] And a threefold reason for this can be assigned, and you will notice these same three reasons will be given in the second article. Of which the first is a reason is from human nature, to which it pertains or belongs to have a true what body, right? Supposing, therefore, from what has gone before. And that it was suitable for the Son of God to assume human nature. Consequently, he assumed a what?

[16:08] Yeah, simple enough, right? So that's reasoning from what was in the previous question, right? So if he became a man, he must have taken on a human body. It's the same thing for the soul, but here's the question about the body, right?

[16:26] The second reason can be taken from those things which were done in the mystery of the incarnation. For if he did not, if it was not a true body, is but a fantastic one, a fictitious one. Therefore, he would not have truly what undergone a true death, right?

[16:51] Nor any of those things which the evangelists narrate would have been done in truth, but only according to certain appearance. And thus it would follow that there was not a true what salvation of men, for it is necessary that the effect be proportioned to the what cause.

[17:20] The third reason can be taken from the very dignity of the person assuming, who since he is truth itself, right? It was not befitting that in his work there be any what fiction. Whence also the Lord excludes this error by himself, right? He thought himself worthy of doing this, right? Okay. When the disciples were disturbed and frightened, they thought they saw a what A spirit. He didn't say I'm only a phantasm

[18:00] and not a true body. Therefore, he offered himself, right, to be touched by them, right? Touch and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have.

[18:22] The first objection said, well, he speaks of him being made in the likeness of men, right? But there's many ways to understand that, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that likeness expresses the truth of the human nature in Christ, in the way in which all who truly exist a human nature are said to be like in what species or kind,

[18:49] is not to be understood of a fantastic likeness. And to the evidence of this, the apostle joins underneath this, right? That he was made obedient to death, to the death of the cross, which could not have come about if it were only a fantastical or imaginative likeness.

[19:16] Phantasm is kind of like the Greek word for imagery, imagination. Forget the word fancy. huh? That's what you get to, especially, you know, say about a guy you fancy her? Because imagination is kind of involved here in love, Greek love. The second objection was saying, "Hey, to put drag God down to the level of a body, right, is to go against His dignity, right?"

[19:57] Yeah. To the second, then it should be. said that by this or through this, that the Son of God assumed a true body, in no way was his dignity or worth excellence diminished. When Augustine says in the book about faith to Peter, he emptied himself, right? That is said in Scripture, taking on the form of a servant that he might become a servant. But he did not what lose the fullness of the form of what God.

[20:29] God. For the Son of God did not thus take on a true body, that he became the what form of a body. Because then he would be kind of drawn down, right?

[20:45] Which is repugnant to the divine simplicity and purity. For this would be to take on a body in the unity of nature, and that's impossible. That the divine nature be what put together with something else to form something new.

[21:06] But saving the distinction of the natures, he assumed it to the unity of his what person. It's a very strong way Scripture speaks. So emptied himself, right?

[21:25] He gives us this example of what humility. Now the third objection, some way, was kind of weak, there, right? To the third, it should be said that a figure ought to respond as regards what likeness, not as regards what truth of the thing.

[21:50] Because if in everything there was likeness, there would no longer be a what sign, right? But the thing itself. So at the Paschal Lamb there was really a human being, right? Wouldn't be so much a sign anymore. As Damascene, right? I was remarking earlier that this today's feast of John of Damascus. huh

[22:20] So it used to be John Damascene I said John of Damascus, it must be the same guy. It can't be two. It was suitable, therefore, that the appearances of the Old Testament were by appearance only, right? As it were, being figures. But the appearance of the Son of God in the world would be according to the truth of the body, as the thing figured or signed or signified through those what figures.

[22:52] Whence the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Colossians, chapter two. That these things are the shadows of future things, the body, however, of Christ. That's a good way of saying it.

[23:07] The shadow is not truly a body, right? But it represents the body, right? The likeness of the body. The apparent apostle here, meaning St. Paul, is talking about the Old Testament, and the things there are called the shadows, right?

[23:36] Some things cast a shadow before them. You heard that said, right? Now the second article arises because of the ancient belief, first of all, that the heavenly bodies, right, were a different kind of body than the bodies down here, and different; they're immortal and so on. And then they misunderstand the text, as you'll see in the first objection.

[24:09] So, did he have earthly body or heavenly body? To the second, one goes forward. Thus, it seemed that Christ did not have a fleshly body or an earthly body, but a what heavenly body? Now, those who say this say that Mary is not really his mother, right? But that he passed through Mary like a canal or something, right? But not really taking flesh from her.

[24:38] And here's a text to misunderstand, right? Always find a text to misunderstand. For the apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, the first man was of the earth, right, earthly. That's Adam, I guess. The second man of the heaven, heavenly, right?

[25:00] But the first man, to wit, Adam, was of the earth as regards his body, as is clear in the account in Genesis 2. Therefore, also the second man, Christ, was from heaven as regards his what body. Y'all convinced?

[25:23] Moreover, one Corinthians 15, the same chapter, huh? Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God. That's pretty to the point. But the kingdom of God is chiefly in what Christ. Therefore, in Him there is no flesh and blood, right? But more heavenly body. It's even more convincing, right? Two powerful arguments.

[25:56] Moreover, everything that is best ought to be attributed to God. But among all bodies, the most noble is the heavenly body, thought to be immortal.

[26:09] Therefore, such a body, Christ ought therefore to assume or take on such a body, huh? But against all this is what the Lord says in Luke, chapter 24. Spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have.

[26:33] But flesh and bones are not from the matter of the heavenly bodies, but from the lower elements, earth, air, fire, and water. Therefore, the body of Christ was not a heavenly body, but a fleshly and earthly body.

[26:53] Thomas is going to use the same arguments, huh? I answer: It should be said that for the same reasons. It appears, wherefore the body of Christ ought not to be heavenly, by which it was shown that it ought not to be what, just imaginary, right? First, because there would not be saved the truth of human nature in Christ if his body were what,

[27:22] imagination, yeah, imaginative, as the Manichaeans laid down. The Manichaeans thought that matter was what, evil. Evil, yeah. So he couldn't take on this, right? Couldn't take on this evil, so it must be merely appearance.

[27:43] So also human nature would not be saved if one laid down a celestial body as Valentinus laid down. For since the form of man is a what natural thing, it requires a determined what matter, to wit, flesh and bones, huh? Which ought to be, which is necessary to lay down in the definition of man, as is clear to the philosopher in the seventh book of wisdom.

[28:18] So that's when you you study the what, the three books about the soul, right? And you see the soul is to the body as form is to what matter, or like an art is to its what tools, right? So Aristotle says when the Pythagoreans say you know the soul of a man could become the soul of a dog or vice versa, right? He said, well, that's as if you know one art could go into the what tools of another art, huh?

[28:52] I always take the example there. My brother-in-law does some carpentry, and my wife who does some sewing, right? And my brother-in-law, you know, if he gives him a needle and thread, he's going to be able to work with the wood. Like a house. You know, I always look out there with a hammer and a nail, you know, putting the dress together or something. So one art cannot enter into the tools of another art, right?

[29:16] So they're they relate to each other. Yeah, something like that when Aristotle's talking about government there in the Politics, huh? That you can't realize just any form of government in any people, right? But this form of government fits these people, and maybe that form of government fits this other kind of people, huh? And so it's like matter, form, and matter.

[29:42] So he's saying since the form of man is a natural thing, it requires a determined matter. He's referring to what Aristotle does in the seventh book when he's refuting Plato, right?

[29:57] Secondly, because this would take away from the truth of those things which Christ did in the body, for since the heavenly body, in the old theory, right, could not undergo anything, was incorruptible, right, as is proved in the first book about the universe, Aristotle's book. If the Son of God assumed a heavenly body, he would not truly what got hungry or thirsted, thirsty, nor would he have sustained passion and death.

[30:34] And third, this would what take away from the divine truth, for since the Son of God shows himself to man as having a fleshly and earthly body, it would be a false what showing to them if he really had a what celestial body. And therefore, in the book about ecclesiastical dogmas, it is said that the Son of God was born, right, taking flesh from the body of the Virgin, and not bringing it with himself from heaven.

[31:12] Okay, now how then do you understand what Saint Paul says? Right, the first man from the earth, right, the second man from heaven. He's heavenly, right? How does it come into play? It's very interesting text that Thomas says, because it's more full than sometimes when he explains it. You know, it's just one of these. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ is said in two ways to descend or come down from what heaven, right?

[31:45] In one way, by reason of his what divine nature, not such that his divine nature ceased to be in heaven, right, but because in the lowest things, right, it began to be in a new way, because he began to be a man, right, according to the nature he assumed, according to that in John three. No one goes up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, right, who is still in heaven as God.

[32:28] So we speak of the what divine nature being in heaven, right, but come down in a way because it's assumed human flesh. And now the other reason he gives here, in another way, by reason of the body itself, not because the body of Christ in its very substance came down from heaven, right, because it came from the Blessed Virgin, right, but because by a what heavenly power.

[33:00] That is the the power of the Holy Spirit. His body was what formed. Whence Augustine says, huh, to Erosius, huh, expounding the authority brought in this argument. I call Christ right celestial because he was not conceived from human what see the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary right. And this in this way also Hilary expounds this right in the book about the Trinity. So these two great minds, there Augustine and Hilary, right, give this second explanation.

[33:43] They have these two ways of understanding Saint Paul's way speaking. It's amazing how many things human mind can understand, misunderstand. Probably more things you can misunderstand than understand.

[34:09] Now the second objection is saying, well, flesh and blood won't possess the kingdom of God, right? Thomas says, well, flesh and blood do not take there, not taken there for the substance of flesh and blood, right? But for the corruption of flesh and blood,

[34:34] a little bit like, like Lear, not Lear, Falstaff says, right? You know, you know, should have pity on him, right? Because he is more flesh than other men, right? Therefore, his frailty should be understood. Or my brother Mark, who is getting married, he says, it's kind of late in life. you don't compare. He's going the way of all flesh.

[35:00] But notice, we do speak of of the flesh as warring against the spirit, right? Huh? And and there you're talking about the corruption of the flesh, right? And the flesh of Christ didn't war against his his spirit, huh? So I mean, he's not we're inventing this meaning of flesh, right? Just to get out of this, to answer this objection, right? But you you find in Scripture itself that this science has that meaning.

[35:31] Which corruption was not in Christ as regards but guilt, sin sin. But it was for some time as regards but being punishable, being made hungry and thirsty and so on, so that he might carry out or fulfill the work of our what redemption.

[35:56] Now the third objection is, well, doesn't this shouldn't the best be attributed to God, right? To the third, then it should be said that this itself pertains to the what greatest glory of God that a infirm and earthly body, right? He what promoted you might say to such what sublimity, right?

[36:31] Like on the mountain there, right? The transfiguration, right? Which is kind of an anticipation of the glory that you have after resurrection. Whence in the synod of Ephesus, the council of Ephesus, is read the words of what Saint Theophilus is saying, huh?

[37:00] In the same way, you might say, that the what? Yeah, the worker, yeah, best of workers, not by precious materials only, right? huh? By showing what their art in admiration, but by assuming, right, the vile clay, right, and the dissolute earth, and so on. showing the power of their what, Discipline or art, right? Are much more praised, right? Huh?

[37:36] Just like a cook, right? Huh? Out of very humble leftovers, you know, can produce a really, you know, more marvelous meal than. You or I might be able to do out of other, you know, good raw materials, right? Huh? Okay.

[37:55] So the highest artist of all, right? The Word of God, right? Not some precious material celestial body, taking that on, right? Grasping that, huh? Came to us, but he showed, right? He managed to do his art in clay or in dirt, yeah. Okay. That's an interesting way of answering that, huh? That third objection. huh?

[38:29] Because sometimes a cook would do some marvelous things, huh? With leftovers, you know, they don't seem very promising, huh? Chesterton says it's kind of the genius of femininity is they can take small things that other people just throw away and they make something marvelous out of. Yeah. Even Mark said about cooking, but also with with like a birthday or something, and they take the simplest things. They don't have much.

[38:53] Yeah, they're making this marvelous. Sometimes we have something like leftovers, some chicken and roast, some beef. Leftover, I say, hey, what? Point me with this, bring me with this, and then a very marvelous meal, you know. We don't have two different wines with the with with the most meals, you know. That's a little contribution. It's an excuse, you know. You have two different wines. You live it up.