Tertia Pars
105. Summa III, Q. 47 a. 3–6: The Father Handing Over the Son, Jews and Gentiles, the Persecutors' Knowledge, and How Grave Their Sin Was
Class of 2010-09-30
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/105-summa-iii-q-47-a-3-6-the-father-handing-over-the-son-jews/

[0:00] Article three. Article three, right? Okay. Whether the God the Father handed Christ over to his passion? To the third one goes forward. Thus, it seems that God the Father did not hand over Christ to his passion, right? For it's iniquitous and cruel. It seems that an innocent man be turned over to suffering and death, right? But it's said in Deuteronomy thirty-two, God is faithful and without any iniquity.

[0:36] Therefore, the innocent Christ he would not hand over to passion and what? Death, right? That's what the man is doing, but you. Might think you know the woman in the street or something. right? Yeah. How can how can you do that to his soul? Yeah, son. Moreover, it does not seem that someone by himself and by another is handed over to death. But Christ handed himself over for us, son.

[1:04] According to what is said in Isaiah fifty-three, he handed over to death his own soul. Therefore, it does not seem that the God the Father handed him over, right?

[1:17] Moreover, Judas is criticized. Yeah. And the fact that he handed Christ over to the Jews, one of you is a devil. One of you is a devil. We said in account of Jude who was going to hand him over, right? Likewise, are held in low esteem the Jews who handed him over to Pilate, according to that which he himself says, John eighteen. Your nation and your priests have handed you over to me, Pilate says.

[1:54] And Pilate handed him over; he might be crucified, right? But there is not any agreement of justice with iniquity. Therefore, it seems that God the Father did not hand Christ over to his what passion or death. But against all this is what is said in Romans eight. Must be important book this Romans are. Yeah. He did not take was it, pity on it? God did not spare.

[2:21] Spare his own son. but said pro nobis, but for all of us he handed him what? Over, right? I answer: It should be said that as has been said, Christ suffered voluntarily from obedience to his what? Father. Or out of obedience to his father. Whence, according to three things, God the Father handed Christ over to his what? Passion. In one way.

[2:57] According to his what eternal will, he pre-ordained the passion of Christ to the liberation of the human race. According to that of Isaiah's chapter fifty-three, that God placed on him the iniquity of all of us. and again, God wished to what break him, break him down, infirmity. Secondly, in so far as he breathed into him a will of suffering for us by pouring into him charity, whence it is said, whence there it follows, he was offered because he willed.

[3:46] Third, in not protecting him from passion, right, but in exposing him to persecution. Yeah, it's all about Christ, you know. Not this. Whence it is said in Matthew twenty-seven forty-six, hanging on the cross, Christ said, "My God, why have you abandoned me?

[4:10] Why didn't you stop this, so to speak, right? Why did you allow this, right? Because he exposed him to the power of those persecuting him, as Augustine says.

[4:31] Okay, I guess they hold the father guilty. He's charged. I says to the first, therefore it should be said, and that to hand over an innocent man to his passion and death against his will is impious and what cruel. cruel Yeah, that's. I remember in moral theology saying, "scienti et volenti non fit injuria," right? You can't do an injury to somebody knowing and willing. So if you say, "Go ahead and smash my windshield with a baseball bat," and I do it.

[5:07] Well, you can't hold me responsible. You knew I was going to do it. You told me to go do it. Figures, boot. Thus, God the Father did not hand Christ over, right? But by inspiring him, the will of what suffering for us,

[5:35] in which is shown both the severity of God, who did not wish sin to be dismissed without punishment, which the apostle signifies, saying he did not spare his own Son. And what? Also, his goodness is shown in this that since a man sufficiently was not able to what? Satisfy. Punish the sinners. He gave a satisfactor one who could satisfy right. Which the apostle signifies, and he said, for all of us, he handed them over, right?

[6:24] And Romans three, he said, whom with Christ through faith he proposed a what? Propitiator. An offering, one to offer. Yeah. In his blood, right?

[6:43] So. Atonement, one. Yeah. When they say the offering of Christ in the church writing. Yeah. One to make atonement. That's why that thing people are very impressed with in Dickens. There, you know, the guy gives his life for that person in in France there in the revolution. Is that the far better thing I do there than before? Or he's got those words. That's Charles Chaplin. Tale of two cities.

[7:07] Tale of two cities. Yeah. Yeah. That has the final kind of final words, right? Yeah. But he's he's willingly dying for the other man, right?

[7:20] Now, what about the the two wills, right? Was it Christ or the Father would hand him over? It says that Christ, according as he was God, handed himself over to death by the same will and action by which the Father handed him over, because they have one will, right, in their divine nature. But in so far as he was man, he handed himself over by a will inspired by the Father.

[7:53] Whence is not contrary in this that Father hand over Christ, and he hand over himself. Perfectly word. Yeah, perfectly word. Thomas sees the thing so clearly.

[8:07] Yeah. Just because he was looking up instead of down, I think. Okay. Now, what about these other people handing him over, right? To the third, it should be said that the same action is diverse ways judged in the good and in the bad, according as it proceeds from a diverse root. For the Father handed over Christ, and he himself himself from charity, right? And therefore they are praised, right?

[8:38] But Judas handed him over from cupidity. The Jews from envy. And Pilate from worldly fear, who feared Caesar, and therefore they are rightly held in contempt.

[8:59] That's pretty clear too. Now, whether it was suitable that Christ undergo from the Gentiles, to the fourth one proceeds thus: It seems it was not suitable that Christ undergo from the Gentiles, because through the death of Christ, men were to be liberated from sin. It would seem most suitable that the fewest possible, right, would sin in his death. But the Jews sinned in his death, from whose person is said, "Here is the heir; let us come and kill him."

[9:42] Right, Christ tells it parabolically. Therefore, it seems suitable that in the passion of the death of Christ, the Gentiles would not be implicated. Moreover, truth ought to correspond to the figure, but The figurative sacrifices of the old law, the Jews offered, and not the Gentiles. Therefore, neither the passion of Christ, which was a true sacrifice, ought to be fulfilled through the hand of the Gentiles.

[10:17] Moreover, as is said in John five eighteen, the Jews sought to kill Christ, not only because he dissolved the Sabbath, but also because he called his father God, making himself equal to God. But these seem to be only against the law of the Jews, whence they themselves say, according to law, he ought to die because he made himself the son of God. It seems, therefore, suitable that Christ, not by the Gentiles, but by the Jews, would suffer.

[10:56] And false what they said, to us it is not licit to kill anyone, since many sins, according to the law, were punished by death, as is clear in Deu twenty. Don't tell anybody that they stoned the adulterer Yeah, St Stephen. I answer: It should be said that in the very way of the passion of Christ is prefigured its effect. That's the next question, right? The effect.

[11:35] Next question, on the next article. But the first, first he says, for the passion of Christ, the effect it had, effect of salvation had in the Jews, many of whom were baptized in the death of Christ, as is clear, Acts two forty one. Secondly, because the Jews preaching the effect of the passion of Christ passed over to the Gentiles, and therefore it was suitable that Christ began to suffer from the Jews, and afterwards the Jews turning over, his passion was completed through the hand of the Gentiles, just like the salvation would be begun with the Jews and then ended in the Gentiles.

[12:31] That's the division of John's Gospel, chapter eighteen and nineteen, in the passion, chapter eighteen Christ suffered from the Jews, chapter nineteen Gentiles. Yeah. Thomas Nick, many times we say explicitly the division of the text. To

[12:53] the first, therefore, should be said, because Christ, to showing the abundance of his charity, right, from which he suffered. On the cross place, he asked forgiveness, right, for the persecutors, that the fruit of this petition might arrive at both the Jews and the Gentiles. Christ wished to suffer from both. Interesting, he says there.

[13:28] To the second, it should be said that the passion of Christ was the offering of a sacrifice, in so far as Christ, by his own will, sustained death from charity, but in so far as it was something suffered from the persecutors, it was not a sacrifice, but what Most grave sin. To the third it should be said, as Augustine says, the Jews saying, "It is not licit for us to kill anyone."

[14:05] They understood It was not licit for them to kill someone on account of the sanctity of the festival day, which they began to celebrate.

[14:20] Or they said this, as Chrysostom says, because they wished to kill him not as a transgressor of the law, but as a public enemy, because he made himself a king, about which it was not for them to judge.

[14:37] Or because it was not licit for them to crucify, which they wished, but to what stone, Stone, which they did to carry out in regard to stigthed. Or better yet, it should be said that through the Romans to whom they were subject, there was the power of killing was what forbidden, right? Yeah, that's a more common. I know some of the fathers bring that up, because that's why Pilate said, "Crucify him yourself," because he was mocking them.

[15:04] They had no power. to do that They were because he was mocking them because because it says that's what John says. He knew that they handed him over, out of envy. So he was sort of mocking their pettiness about this man.

[15:21] Now, whether the persecutors of Christ knew him, right? It's interesting question. To the fifth, then, one proceeds thus: It seems that the persecutors of Christ knew him, right? For he said in Matthew twenty-one that the the farmers, right, seeing the son in that parable, right, said to themselves, "Here is the heir. Come, let us kill them, huh? Whence Jerome says, "Most manifestly, Christ shows by these words that the princes of the Jews, not by ignorance, but by what envy, crucified the Son of God."

[16:13] For they understood him to be the one to whom the Father said through the prophet, "Ask from me, and I will give to you the Gentiles as your inheritance." Therefore, it seems that they knew him to be Christ or the Son of God.

[16:33] Moreover, John fifteen, the Lord Himself says, "Now however they see and they hate me and my Father." Right. But what is seen is manifestly what known. Therefore, the Jews, knowing Christ,

[16:57] give passion to him from hatred, right, from cause of hate. Moreover, in a certain sermon of the Council of Ephesus, just as who what tears up? We had this quote before, right? Yeah, yeah. As the word tearing up the word the emperor is brought to death, right? Thus crucifying the Jew, the Jew crucifying, oh, it's crucifying the Jew whom they saw.

[17:30] The Jew crucifying the one whom he saw gave punishment as God himself imposing as presumptuous punishment This would not have been however, if they did not know him to be the Son of God, right? Because ignorance would have excused them. Therefore, it seems that the Jews crucifying Christ knew him to be the Son of God.

[18:03] But against this is what is said in one Corinthians two: If they had known, never would they have crucified the Lord of what glory. And again, in Acts three, Peter says to the crowd, "They're Jews." Speaking to them, I know that through ignorance you did this, just as your what princes, and therefore the Lord Himself and the cross says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not know what they do."

[18:33] Okay, so Tom's going to handle this now. This is this for the magister, not for me. Answer: It should be said that among the Jews, some were more or greater and some less.

[18:49] The greater were those who are called what princes, and they knew, as is said in the book on the questions of the New Old Testament, just as the demons knew, right?

[19:05] Him to be the Christ promised in the law. For all the signs they saw in him, which was said to be what in the future by the prophets, right? But the mystery of his divinity, they were what ignorant of, and that's why it says the apostle, meaning Saint Paul, says that if they had known, they would not have what crucified. So they knew he was the Christ, but not the what Son of God.

[19:41] It should be known, of them, and, that their ignorance does not excuse them from the crime or from crime, because it was in a certain way a studied. Yeah.

[19:58] For they saw evident signs of his divinity, but from their hatred and envy of Christ, they perverted them, and his words, right, by which he confessed himself to be the Son of God, they did not wish to believe.

[20:24] Whence he says of them, John fifteen: If I had not come and had not what spoken to them, they would not have sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. And afterwards he adds, "If I had not done deeds in them which no one else right does, they would not have what sin. " And thus, from their person, can be taken what is said in Job twenty one: "They said to God, 'Go away from us.

[20:58] We do not wish the knowledge of your ways. ' " It's kind of a voluntary ignorance, right? And they're not excused by ignorance. I wonder about this thing about abortion. You know, kind of a voluntary ignorance, you know, abortion.

[21:20] Yeah, that's what Saint Thomas talks about that in judging certain kinds of sins. I think it's another name for studied ignorance. He calls it sort of a voluntary inadvertence. I don't want to look over there to see. That's what I think. I'm just going to keep looking this way. Yeah.

[21:42] So that's an excuse, you then, for ignorance, then. Yes, voluntary. A lot of people in the church now they don't seem to know what the church teaches, right? That voluntary, to some extent, I always think it is when I, I, I'm sympathetic to many people who say, well, we're never taught these things. You know, we don't hear them in the pulpit, and I say, yeah, but we live in the information age.

[22:10] Yeah. Yeah. You don't know where the Vatican website is. You can't go to the public library, dig up in a cyclical or something. Now he says the lesser ones, the people, right, who did not know the mysteries of Scripture, right, they did not fully know him to be the Christ, right, nor the Son of God, right, although some of them also believed in him, right. But the multitude did what?

[22:42] Did not believe. And sometimes they doubted whether he was the Christ, on account of the multitude of signs, and the efficacy of the teaching. Nevertheless, afterwards they were deceived by their what princes that they would not believe him either to be the Son of God nor Christ, right?

[23:08] Whence Peter says to them, "I know that through ignorance you did this, just as your princes, because through the princes they were what seduced them. "

[23:22] Now, what about that story the Christ tells? This is the heir, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that those words are said from the person of the what? Cultivators, the vine, columnists, which signified the rulers of the people who knew him to be the heir, in so far as they knew him to be the Christ promised in the law, right?

[23:55] But against this response, it seems to seems to be those words of Psalm two, "Ask of me, and I will give you the Gentiles as your inheritance. "

[24:09] And this is said to the same one to whom is said, "You are my son; this day I have begotten you. " If therefore they knew him to be the one to whom is said, "Ask of me, and I will give you the Gentiles, the nations as your inheritance, " it follows that they knew him to be the what Son of God. Chrysostom also there says that they knew him to be the Son of God.

[24:37] Bede also says upon that of Luke twenty three, because they know not what they do. It should be known that not for them does he pray, who understood him to be the what Son of God,

[24:54] but they would rather what? They would rather crucify and confess it. Yeah. That's why not said for everybody. But to this it can be answered that they knew him to be the Son of God, not by nature, but by the excellence of a singular grace.

[25:25] We are able, nevertheless, to say that. Also, they are said to know the true Son of God, because evident signs of this thing they have. To which, nevertheless, they do not wish to assent, on account of hate and what, envy, that they might know him to be the Son of God.

[25:49] That's last course I had from Monsignor Dionne there, you know, just on the role of the appetite, you know, in the life of the mind, right? You see it right here in another context.

[26:05] Oh yeah, yeah. Of course, he took the Confessions of Augustine to illustrate some of these things, you know. And I guess I remember talking about the time when when Augustine's mother goes to the bishop. and says, will you talk to him? He says, "Not yet. He's not yet docile right? And they will, you know. " It's like our Lord's silence before Herod. Yeah. Yeah.

[26:39] I guess when I went to Monsignor Dionne to see if he'd approve, be my director for my thesis, right? You know. And I just submitted a kind of outline of it and so on. And so I looked it over, you know, so he asked me a few innocuous questions, you know. And he said, "no more serious objections, you know. he kind of proposed a different ordering of the thing, you know.

[27:01] " And when he said, I could see it was, you know, proving factors so good that I could write the thesis myself after that. That's how I did it. But at the beginning, I said, "Oh no, yes, it's not good. I see the way it is now. I see I can see that. " Oh. So I don't have any evidence of what I'm saying. You give me the thing, you know, you write the thesis myself.

[27:19] But just kind of checking your will a little bit, you know, and see if I was docile, you know, to these corrections. And he

[27:29] said, "Well, who do you think you're going to direct your thesis? " I said, "Your spiritual food. " That's what he says. Thomas says some commentaries on the on the Epistles of Saint Paul. Beautiful things about the role of the appetite, you know. And you know how pride is a cause of deception, right? Beautiful things in there. Fundamental text.

[28:12] I mean, pride causes you to make mistakes by what you overestimate your own ability, and therefore you apply your mind to judging something above the capacity of your mind. That's one way you make mistakes. The other is that you don't submit your mind to those like Thomas who are. You know, greater than your mind in this matter anyway, and therefore you fall into error, where they would be pulled back from error, prevented from error, pulled back from error if you read Thomas, you know.

[28:42] Yeah. Just get the blood circulating so my brain works. Actually Empedocles says that the blood is thought there, you know. That's what thought is.

[29:05] Circulation of blood, circulation of your thoughts I used to always tell it to students, you know, I say, you know, if you say the main parts of our body are bone and flesh and blood, and thought is one of these three, is blood the best guess? It's more subtle. it penetrates things, right? See, if you take your handkerchief out, you know, you put a piece of bone there or a piece of flesh, nothing happens, Put some blood there it goes right through.

[29:35] Yeah. And then I always quote my high school teacher there, where I first met Warren Murray, by the way, in biology class there, sophomore, Mr. Gatto, you know. And he asked a question. Nobody knew the answer. He'd say, "Boneheads!" He'd slam the desk. You know if we slammed the desk? like that our hand would be broken you know, People were actually physically afraid of Gatto you know.

[30:00] There are stories told of him, you know, throwing people down the stairs. I didn't see that, you know, but you know, but I think I studied more for Gatto's exams than for anybody else in my academic career, you know. Yeah. That was always saying boneheads. That was a thing. So that's not a compliment I said. Yeah. So blood was a good example, you know, for for thought, and you had to, choose one of those things.

[30:28] And about the flesh, I know somewhere one of the scripture commentaries that you say, well, if you if we understand commonly to say that you live according to flesh, that's to live badly. Yeah. To think according to flesh is to think badly. Yeah. I think St. Thomas says that much because because it's I think maybe according to the expression of St. Paul or something, you're thinking according to the flesh, you're judging according to the flesh.

[30:52] Yeah. Judging badly. A lot of people out there doing that, I think. Yeah. Yeah. No, that was the what the first objection. Second, second, second. Let me see first. Okay, reference second. That's Amen. Okay, the second should be said. It's the words now were. Now they have seen and and they hate me and my father, right? Okay. To the second, should be said that before those words, there is set forth: if I had not done deeds in them which no one else has done, they would not have sinned, right?

[31:35] And afterwards, he joins: now, however, they see and they hate both me and my father. From which is shown that seeing the works, the marvellous works of Christ, right? It proceeded from hate that they did not know him to be what? Son of God. Son of God, yeah. So it's the will is interfering with this, right?

[32:02] You wonder a little bit with this denial. You know, the modern scientists, you know, that nature acts for an end. You know, because because you know, if they once admit that nature acts for an end, then God's going to come in, right? And and there was one scientist, I forget which one it was, a big shot, I think, was at Harvard. You know, who said we can't admit that.

[32:19] you have to admit God. Which was giving the everybody else got mad at him because he was giving away the the secret, right? But but it's it's in the will that that they don't want to you know accept this, right? Because they they realize if they accept that, then they got to. This was Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Alphonsus draws the conclusion from that, which is to say that the only reason that they they don't want to admit this is because they're living a bad life.

[32:44] It's a moral problem. Yeah, yeah. They're attached to their sin, and if they they admit God, well, then they're going to change. Yeah. He says it about the the contemporary scientists of his day. Oh. They hadn't arrived at evolutionary thought yet, but that was or the we're not necessarily deists but that they were free thinkers or whatever they said they just they didn't want to admit God or at least revelation because and then he says it's all it's a moral problem basically.

[33:17] Talk about a misnomer, free thinkers. About as free as well. Yeah. Essentially, have to say you know that eyes are not for the sake of seeing, you know, not made for the sake of seeing. But you can see with them, that's true. And the ears not made for hearing, but you can hear with them, you know.

[33:40] Make use of them, yeah. Make a virtue out of necessity. I sometimes, you know, with the little things, even the plants, you know, that we grow around the house or the yard, there, you know, how the plant sends out these feelers, you know, to find things to swing around to pull itself up, you know. Yeah. And I used to notice, especially with snow peas, you know, I would, you know, just it's acting for an end All the vines do yeah Yeah, Attach themselves.

[34:09] to something Right. You know, both both Plato in the I guess in Symposium, yeah, Aristotle in the De Anima, they both say, you know, that this reproduction in plants and in animals is to become like God, right? To be immortal like God is. So far as possible for the plants, right? Well, the mortal plants and animals can't be as individuals immortal, but they can get a certain immortality by what reproducing their kind, right?

[34:39] So, like Shakespeare in the beginning of the sonnets, there, you know, From, fairest creatures we desire increase, thereby beauty's rose might never die. So it's a kind of immortality you're looking for in reproduction, and that kind of makes so much sense out of things, you know. Yeah, and if you hear it, you get criticized. This idea of when we speak of life everlasting, people, say, well, that's really arrogant that you want to go on forever.

[35:06] Well, yeah, what's wrong with that? That's like David Hume, you know. Good is bad. Yes, David Hume, you know, wasn't even bothered by the idea that you know death would be not exist at all after his death. That's what he found. He said, "I'm no more bothered by that than the fact that I didn't exist before I was born."That's Just the way it is, yeah. Yeah. Of course, you know, Samuel Johnson, yeah, that just infuriated him.

[35:38] Yeah, I mean, just you know, that man could say those things, could he? Can't even think those things, you know. Yeah. Anyway. Now the the third, yeah, third objection, right? And that is one about complementing the emperor's sin. To the third, it

[36:03] should be said that ignorance affectata—we have a word like that in English, right? Affected. Yeah, affected. yeah. Does not excuse from guilt, but more seems to aggravate the guilt, huh? Yeah. For it shows a man to be thus so vehemently affected to sinning that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he what? Has to avoid the sin, right? Yeah, unless he avoids sinning. Doesn't make sense. Well, because he wants to do it.

[36:40] That's his affection for sin. He wants to sin. Lest he avoid sinning though. Lest he. Yeah, he wants to sin some more. Lest he has to avoid sinning. Oh. Oh. He wants to sin. Right. So he wants to be ignorant, so he doesn't have to change. So, so he doesn't have to avoid. Yeah, that's right. So he can do the evil he wants. Okay. Yeah. And therefore, the Jews sin, right?

[37:07] Not only the what the crucifiers of the Man Christ, but also of what God? That's very serious. There's that. There's a story from the Russian Revolution. This mass was going on, and the revolutionaries came in and shot the priest, and the consecrated host fell from his hand, and the revolution killer smashed it with his heel, and it says,

[37:46] "You know, that's your God under my heel." And one of the peasants spoke up and he said that Father, forgive him, even if he knows what he's doing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, time for a nap. We have to stop. Oh, this is kind of short.

[38:08] Okay. Whether the sin of those crucifying Christ was not, or was the most grave, right? It seems that the sin of those crucifying Christ was not the most grave. For that is not most grave, a sin that has some excuse, right? But the Lord excused the sin of those crucifying him, saying, "Father." Forgive them, because they know not what they do, right? Therefore, the sin of them was not the most grave, right?

[38:44] Moreover, the Lord says to Pilate, John nineteen eleven, who handed me over to you, has the greater what sin? But Pilate made Christ to be crucified through his ministers. Therefore, it seems the greater was the sin of what Judas, the betrayer, the sin of betrayer than the sin of those crucifying Christ.

[39:11] Moreover, according to the philosopher in the fifth book of the ethics, no one suffers what. Unjustly, willingly. And just as he himself says there, no one what suffering the unjust.

[39:31] To no one suffering injustice. Makes no one. No one makes him unjust, doesn't he? Because if no one suffers injustice, nobody works injustice. Oh, when no one suffers injustice, no one does injustice. Yeah, he's not doing. Yeah. Therefore, willingly, no one does unjust. But Christ voluntarily suffered. Therefore, it was not unjust that they crucified him, right? He wanted to be crucified. Yeah, yeah, doing his will. Yeah.

[40:11] But against this is what is said upon that of Matthew twenty three, and you fill up the measure of your fathers, says Chrysostom. Our Chrysostom says about that text: as regards the truth, they exceeded the measure of their what fathers. For those men, for they killed men, but these crucified God.

[40:36] Hence, it should be said, as has been said, the princes of the Jews knew Christ, right? And if there was any ignorance in them, it was an affected ignorance, which cannot what excuse them. And therefore, their sin was most grave, both from the genus of the sin, as well as from the malice of their what will.

[41:04] But the lesser Jews most gravely sin as regards the genus of sin. But in some way, their sin is diminished on account of their what ignorance. Whence, upon that of Luke twenty three, they know not what they do, says Bede For those he prays who did not know what they did. Having the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. Right. It seems like he's praying for them and not for the princes so much.

[41:35] That's what it seems. Yeah. I mean, the princes converted afterwards. I don't know. That's not clear from. I know it says it said that some of the priests as in Acts. It said many of the priests have become believers, but it didn't say about whether the high priest, the prince. Yeah. But our Lord foretells this, and when he says he tells his apostles, he says, "There will be those who will kill you who think they're serving God."

[42:03] That was foretold first in himself. Yeah. Because they had zeal for God. Yeah. unenlightened. Much more was excusable the sin of the Gentiles, through whose hands Christ was crucified, who did not have the knowledge of the law. To the first, therefore, it should be said. He said, "Father, forgive them for not what they do." That that excuse of the Lord does not refer to the princes of the Jews, but to the lesser the people, right?

[42:38] That's interesting explanation of that. You know, more precise understanding of that. the second, it should be, and maybe for the Gentiles too, huh? To the second, should be said that Judas handed over what Christ, not to Pilate, but to the princes of the priests. Who handed him over to Pilate, according to that of John eighteen. Your nation and your priests have handed you over to me.

[43:12] High priests. And of all these, the sin was greater than that of Pilate, who by his fear of Caesar killed Christ. Right. No friend of Caesar if you. tolerate this man. And also then the sin of these soldiers, who by the command of the one presiding, crucified Christ, not from cupidity as Judas, nor from envy and hatred as the princes of the priests.

[43:47] The third one about Christ's willingness. That Christ wished to be sure of his own passion, just as God will it, right? But nevertheless, he did not will the evil action of the Jews. And therefore, the killers of Christ are not excused from injustice. And nevertheless, the one who kills the man does an injury not only to man, but also to God and to the republic, right? Just as the one who kills himself, as the philosopher says in the fifth book of Ethics.

[44:25] I guess Aristotle is going to come on down against mercy killing now. Once David condemns to death the one who does not fear to place his hands, upon the Christ of the Lord So we're asking for it, "Read Second Kings." Yeah, The guy who killed Saul. Mm-hmm.

[44:54] The anointed one of Christ, the anointed of the Lord. It's just starting to read the Richard II, you know, and of course, he's going to be eventually killed, right? Of course, when you have the continuation, you know this effects of the reign of Henry IV, huh? Even Henry V, he's still having prayers for the for Richard, because he fears he's going to be punished for for the what they did.

[45:22] You know, he didn't do anything; his father did. You know, he inherited the throne from his father. Beautiful passage there at the beginning. You know where about the effect of the appetite? There, he says, "High stomached are they both?" It's a way of saying kind of froward, right? Huh? And oh yeah, because their appetite. Yeah, yeah. And then he says, and

[46:18] the last part hasty as fire, but in rage, deaf as the sea. Hasty as fire. Deaf as the sea. In rage, deaf as the sea. Hasty as fire. Well, that's the kind of two causes of error, right? Because hasty is fire as you're attempting something, you know, more quickly than you should, right? And in rage, deaf as the what? Sea. Yeah, you don't listen to those, huh?

[46:43] Of course it applies more to Richard himself than to than to Bolinbrook and uh and Mowbray, right? he says about them, right? And later on, when they talk about why it is Richard the Second doesn't listen to John of Gaunt and the Duke of York and his uncles and so on, and then he goes in more into the causes of it, you know.

[47:06] I don't think he says sea. What? Sea, sea as the ocean, yeah. Rage. Yeah, because it rages, but it can't hear. I guess the air, the storm, and the the waves coming and crashing against.

[47:22] Raging, but it doesn't hear. It doesn't have a sense of hearing. The ocean. But it kind of touches upon those two causes of pride being a cause of deception, right? You attempt something beyond your power. It's hasty as fire, and then you don't listen to those.