Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
We have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection:
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all
men or only to some special individuals?
(2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise?
(3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the
Resurrection?
(4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples "in
another shape"?
(5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs?
(6) Of the cogency of those proofs.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection ought to have been
manifested to all. For just as a public penalty is due for public sin,
according to 1 Tim. 5:20: "Them that sin reprove before all," so is a
public reward due for public merit. But, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in
Joan.), "the glory of the Resurrection is the reward of the humility of
the Passion." Therefore, since Christ's Passion was manifested to all
while He suffered in public, it seems that the glory of the Resurrection
ought to have been manifested to all.
Objection 2: Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our salvation, so
also is His Resurrection, according to Rm. 4:25: "He rose again for our
justification." But what belongs to the public weal ought to be
manifested to all. Therefore Christ's Resurrection ought to have been
manifested to all, and not to some specially.
Objection 3: Further, they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the
Resurrection: hence it is said (Acts 3:15): "Whom God hath raised from
the dead, of which we are witnesses." Now they bore witness by preaching
in public: and this is unbecoming in women, according to 1 Cor. 14:34:
"Let women keep silence in the churches": and 1 Tim. 2:12: "I suffer not
a woman to teach." Therefore, it does not seem becoming for Christ's
Resurrection to be manifested first of all to the women and afterwards to
mankind in general.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 10:40): "Him God raised up the
third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but
to witnesses preordained by God."
I answer that, Some things come to our knowledge by nature's common law,
others by special favor of grace, as things divinely revealed. Now, as
Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv), the divinely established law of such
things is that they be revealed immediately by God to higher persons,
through whom they are imparted to others, as is evident in the ordering
of the heavenly spirits. But such things as concern future glory are
beyond the common ken of mankind, according to Is. 64:4: "The eye hath
not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them
that wait for Thee." Consequently, such things are not known by man
except through Divine revelation, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:10): "God
hath revealed them to us by His spirit." Since, then, Christ rose by a
glorious Resurrection, consequently His Resurrection was not manifested
to everyone, but to some, by whose testimony it could be brought to the
knowledge of others.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's Passion was consummated in a body that still had a passible nature, which is known to all by general laws: consequently His Passion could be directly manifested to all. But the Resurrection was accomplished "through the glory of the Father," as the Apostle says (Rm. 6:4). Therefore it was manifested directly to some, but not to all.
But that a public penance is imposed upon public sinners, is to be
understood of the punishment of this present life. And in like manner
public merits should be rewarded in public, in order that others may be
stirred to emulation. But the punishments and rewards of the future life
are not publicly manifested to all, but to those specially who are
preordained thereto by God.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as Christ's Resurrection is for the common salvation
of all, so it came to the knowledge of all; yet not so that it was
directly manifested to all, but only to some, through whose testimony it
could be brought to the knowledge of all.
Reply to Objection 3: A woman is not to be allowed to teach publicly in church;
but she may be permitted to give familiar instruction to some privately.
And therefore as Ambrose says on Lk. 24:22, "a woman is sent to them who
are of her household," but not to the people to bear witness to the
Resurrection. But Christ appeared to the woman first, for this reason,
that as a woman was the first to bring the source of death to man, so she
might be the first to announce the dawn of Christ's glorious
Resurrection. Hence Cyril says on Jn. 20:17: "Woman who formerly was the
minister of death, is the first to see and proclaim the adorable mystery
of the Resurrection: thus womankind has procured absolution from
ignominy, and removal of the curse." Hereby, moreover, it is shown, so
far as the state of glory is concerned, that the female sex shall suffer
no hurt; but if women burn with greater charity, they shall also attain
greater glory from the Divine vision: because the women whose love for
our Lord was more persistent---so much so that "when even the disciples
withdrew" from the sepulchre "they did not depart" [*Gregory, Hom. xxv in
Evang.]---were the first to see Him rising in glory.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem fitting that the disciples should have seen Him
rise again, because it was their office to bear witness to the
Resurrection, according to Acts 4:33: "With great power did the apostles
give testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord." But the
surest witness of all is an eye-witness. Therefore it would have been
fitting for them to see the very Resurrection of Christ.
Objection 2: Further, in order to have the certainty of faith the disciples
saw Christ ascend into heaven, according to Acts 1:9: "While they looked
on, He was raised up." But it was also necessary for them to have faith
in the Resurrection. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have risen
in sight of the disciples.
Objection 3: Further, the raising of Lazarus was a sign of Christ's coming
Resurrection. But the Lord raised up Lazarus in sight of the disciples.
Consequently, it seems that Christ ought to have risen in sight of the
disciples.
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 16:9): The Lord "rising early the
first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen." Now Mary
Magdalen did not see Him rise; but, while searching for Him in the
sepulchre, she heard from the angel: "He is risen, He is not here."
Therefore no one saw Him rise again.
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1): "Those things that are of
God, are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God]." Now
the divinely established order is this, that things above men's ken are
revealed to them by angels, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). But
Christ on rising did not return to the familiar manner of life, but to a
kind of immortal and God-like condition, according to Rm. 6:10: "For in
that He liveth, He liveth unto God." And therefore it was fitting for
Christ's Resurrection not to be witnessed by men directly, but to be
proclaimed to them by angels. Accordingly, Hilary (Comment. Matth. cap.
ult.) says: "An angel is therefore the first herald of the Resurrection,
that it might be declared out of obedience to the Father's will."
Reply to Objection 1: The apostles were able to testify to the Resurrection even
by sight, because from the testimony of their own eyes they saw Christ
alive, whom they had known to be dead. But just as man comes from the
hearing of faith to the beatific vision, so did men come to the sight of
the risen Christ through the message already received from angels.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's Ascension as to its term wherefrom, was not above
men's common knowledge, but only as to its term whereunto. Consequently,
the disciples were able to behold Christ's Ascension as to the term
wherefrom, that is, according as He was uplifted from the earth; but they
did not behold Him as to the term whereunto, because they did not see how
He was received into heaven. But Christ's Resurrection transcended common
knowledge as to the term wherefrom, according as His soul returned from
hell and His body from the closed sepulchre; and likewise as to the term
whereunto, according as He attained to the life of glory. Consequently,
the Resurrection ought not to be accomplished so as to be seen by man.
Reply to Objection 3: Lazarus was raised so that he returned to the same life as
before, which life is not beyond man's common ken. Consequently, there is
no parity.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have lived constantly with His
Disciples, because He appeared to them after His Resurrection in order to
confirm their faith in the Resurrection, and to bring them comfort in
their disturbed state, according to Jn. 20:20: "The disciples were glad
when they saw the Lord." But they would have been more assured and
consoled had He constantly shown them His presence. Therefore it seems
that He ought to have lived constantly with them.
Objection 2: Further, Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend to
heaven, but after forty days, as is narrated in Acts 1:3. But meanwhile
He could have been in no more suitable place than where the disciples
were met together. Therefore it seems that He ought to have lived with
them continually.
Objection 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), we read how
Christ appeared five times on the very day of His Resurrection: first "to
the women at the sepulchre; secondly to the same on the way from the
sepulchre; thirdly to Peter; fourthly to the two disciples going to the
town; fifthly to several of them in Jerusalem when Thomas was not
present." Therefore it also seems that He ought to have appeared several
times on the other days before the Ascension.
Objection 4: Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion (Mt. 26:32): "But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into
Galilee"; moreover an angel and our Lord Himself repeated the same to the
women after the Resurrection: nevertheless He was seen by them in
Jerusalem on the very day of the Resurrection, as stated above (Objection [3]);
also on the eighth day, as we read in Jn. 20:26. It seems, therefore,
that He did not live with the disciples in a fitting way after the
Resurrection.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 20:26) that "after eight days"
Christ appeared to the disciples. Therefore He did not live constantly
with them.
I answer that, Concerning the Resurrection two things had to be
manifested to the disciples, namely, the truth of the Resurrection, and
the glory of Him who rose. Now in order to manifest the truth of the
Resurrection, it sufficed for Him to appear several times before them, to
speak familiarly to them, to eat and drink, and let them touch Him. But
in order to manifest the glory of the risen Christ, He was not desirous
of living with them constantly as He had done before, lest it might seem
that He rose unto the same life as before. Hence (Lk. 24:44) He said to
them: "These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with
you." For He was there with them by His bodily presence, but hitherto He
had been with them not merely by His bodily presence, but also in mortal
semblance. Hence Bede in explaining those words of Luke, "while I was
with you," says: "that is, while I was still in mortal flesh, in which
you are yet: for He had then risen in the same flesh, but was not in the
same state of mortality as they."
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's frequent appearing served to assure the disciples
of the truth of the Resurrection; but continual intercourse might have
led them into the error of believing that He had risen to the same life
as was His before. Yet by His constant presence He promised them comfort
in another life, according to Jn. 16:22: "I will see you again, and your
heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you."
Reply to Objection 2: That Christ did not stay continually with the disciples was
not because He deemed it more expedient for Him to be elsewhere: but
because He judged it to be more suitable for the apostles' instruction
that He should not abide continually with them, for the reason given
above. But it is quite unknown in what places He was bodily present in
the meantime, since Scripture is silent, and His dominion is in every
place (Cf. Ps. 102:22).
Reply to Objection 3: He appeared oftener on the first day, because the disciples
were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in His
Resurrection from the very out set: but after they had once accepted it,
they had no further need of being instructed by so many apparitions.
Accordingly one reads in the Gospel that after the first day He appeared
again only five times. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii),
after the first five apparitions "He came again a sixth time when Thomas
saw Him; a seventh time was by the sea of Tiberias at the capture of the
fishes; the eighth was on the mountain of Galilee, according to Matthew;
the ninth occasion is expressed by Mark, 'at length when they were at
table,' because no more were they going to eat with Him upon earth; the
tenth was on the very day, when no longer upon the earth, but uplifted
into the cloud, He was ascending into heaven. But, as John admits, not
all things were written down. And He visited them frequently before He
went up to heaven," in order to comfort them. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:6,7) that "He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once . .
. after that He was seen by James"; of which apparitions no mention is
made in the Gospels.
Reply to Objection 4: Chrysostom in explaining Mt. 26:32---"after I shall be
risen again, I will go before you into Galilee," says (Hom. lxxxiii in
Matth.), "He goes not to some far off region in order to appear to them,
but among His own people, and in those very places" in which for the most
part they had lived with Him; "in order that they might thereby believe
that He who was crucified was the same as He who rose again." And on this
account "He said that He would go into Galilee, that they might be
delivered from fear of the Jews."
Consequently, as Ambrose says (Expos. in Luc.), "The Lord had sent word
to the disciples that they were to see Him in Galilee; yet He showed
Himself first to them when they were assembled together in the room out
of fear. (Nor is there any breaking of a promise here, but rather a
hastened fulfilling out of kindness)" [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Luc. xxiv,
36]: "afterwards, however, when their minds were comforted, they went
into Galilee. Nor is there any reason to prevent us from supposing that
there were few in the room, and many more on the mountain." For, as
Eusebius [*Of Caesarea; Cf. Migne, P. G., xxii, 1003] says, "Two
Evangelists, Luke and John, write that He appeared in Jerusalem to the
eleven only; but the other two said that an angel and our Saviour
commanded not merely the eleven, but all the disciples and brethren, to
go into Galilee. Paul makes mention of them when he says (1 Cor. 15:6):
'Then He appeared to more then five hundred brethren at once.'" The truer
solution, however, is this, that while they were in hiding in Jerusalem
He appeared to them at first in order to comfort them; but in Galilee it
was not secretly, nor once or twice, that He made Himself known to them
with great power, "showing Himself to them alive after His Passion, by
many proofs," as Luke says (Acts 1:3). Or as Augustine writes (De
Consens. Evang. iii): "What was said by the angel and by our Lord---that
He would 'go before them into Galilee,' must be taken prophetically. For
if we take Galilee as meaning 'a passing,' we must understand that they
were going to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, who would
not believe in the preaching of the apostles unless He prepared the way
for them in men's hearts: and this is signified by the words 'He shall go
before you into Galilee.' But if by Galilee we understand 'revelation,'
we are to understand this as applying to Him not in the form of a
servant, but in that form wherein He is equal to the Father, and which He
has promised to them that love Him. Although He has gone before us in
this sense, He has not abandoned us."
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have appeared to the
disciples "in another shape." For a thing cannot appear in very truth
other than it is. But there was only one shape in Christ. Therefore if He
appeared under another, it was not a true but a false apparition. Now
this is not at all fitting, because as Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu.
14): "If He deceives He is not the Truth; yet Christ is the Truth."
Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to have appeared to the
disciples "in another shape."
Objection 2: Further, nothing can appear in another shape than the one it has,
except the beholder's eyes be captivated by some illusions. But since
such illusions are brought about by magical arts, they are unbecoming in
Christ, according to what is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath
Christ with Belial?" Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have
appeared in another shape.
Objection 3: Further, just as our faith receives its surety from Scripture, so
were the disciples assured of their faith in the Resurrection by Christ
appearing to them. But, as Augustine says in an Epistle to Jerome
(xxviii), if but one untruth be admitted into the Sacred Scripture, the
whole authority of the Scriptures is weakened. Consequently, if Christ
appeared to the disciples, in but one apparition, otherwise than He was,
then whatever they saw in Christ after the Resurrection will be of less
import, which is not fitting. Therefore He ought not to have appeared in
another shape.
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 16:12): "After that He appeared in
another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the
country."
I answer that, As stated above (Articles [1],2), Christ's Resurrection was to
be manifested to men in the same way as Divine things are revealed. But
Divine things are revealed to men in various ways, according as they are
variously disposed. For, those who have minds well disposed, perceive
Divine things rightly, whereas those not so disposed perceive them with a
certain confusion of doubt or error: "for, the sensual men perceiveth not
those things that are of the Spirit of God," as is said in 1 Cor. 2:14.
Consequently, after His Resurrection Christ appeared in His own shape to
some who were well disposed to belief, while He appeared in another shape
to them who seemed to be already growing tepid in their faith: hence
these said (Lk. 24:21): "We hoped that it was He that should have
redeemed Israel." Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxiii in Evang.), that "He
showed Himself to them in body such as He was in their minds: for,
because He was as yet a stranger to faith in their hearts, He made
pretense of going on farther," that is, as if He were a stranger.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii), "not everything of
which we make pretense is a falsehood; but when what we pretend has no
meaning then is it a falsehood. But when our pretense has some
signification, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth; otherwise
everything said figuratively by wise and holy men, or even by our Lord
Himself, would be set down as a falsehood, because it is not customary to
take such expressions in the literal sense. And deeds, like words, are
feigned without falsehood, in order to denote something else." And so it
happened here. as has been said.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Our Lord could
change His flesh so that His shape really was other than they were
accustomed to behold; for, before His Passion He was transfigured on the
mountain, so that His face shone like the sun. But it did not happen thus
now." For not without reason do we "understand this hindrance in their
eyes to have been of Satan's doing, lest Jesus might be recognized."
Hence Luke says (24:16) that "their eyes were held, that they should not
know Him."
Reply to Objection 3: Such an argument would prove, if they had not been brought
back from the sight of a strange shape to that of Christ's true
countenance. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "The
permission was granted by Christ," namely, that their eyes should be held
fast in the aforesaid way, "until the Sacrament of the bread; that when
they had shared in the unity of His body, the enemy's hindrance may be
understood to have been taken away, so that Christ might be recognized."
Hence he goes on to say that "'their eyes were opened, and they knew
Him'; not that they were hitherto walking with their eyes shut; but there
was something in them whereby they were not permitted to recognize what
they saw. This could be caused by the darkness or by some kind of humor."
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have demonstrated the truth
of His Resurrection by proofs. For Ambrose says (De Fide, ad Gratian. i):
"Let there be no proofs where faith is required." But faith is required
regarding the Resurrection. Therefore proofs are out of place there.
Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxvi): "Faith has no merit where
human reason supplies the test." But it was no part of Christ's office to
void the merit of faith. Consequently, it was not for Him to confirm the
Resurrection by proofs.
Objection 3: Further, Christ came into the world in order that men might
attain beatitude through Him, according to Jn. 10:10: "I am come that
they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." But supplying
proofs seems to be a hindrance in the way of man's beatitude; because our
Lord Himself said (Jn. 20:29): "Blessed are they that have not seen, and
have believed." Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to manifest
His Resurrection by any proofs.
On the contrary, It is related in Acts 1:3, that Christ appeared to His
disciples "for forty days by many proofs, speaking of the Kingdom of God."
I answer that, The word "proof" is susceptible of a twofold meaning:
sometimes it is employed to designate any sort "of reason in confirmation
of what is a matter of doubt" [*Tully, Topic. ii]: and sometimes it means
a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth; thus also Aristotle
occasionally uses the term in his works [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii; Rhetor.
i]. Taking "proof" in the first sense, Christ did not demonstrate His
Resurrection to the disciples by proofs, because such argumentative proof
would have to be grounded on some principles: and if these were not known
to the disciples, nothing would thereby be demonstrated to them, because
nothing can be known from the unknown. And if such principles were known
to them, they would not go beyond human reason, and consequently would
not be efficacious for establishing faith in the Resurrection, which is
beyond human reason, since principles must be assumed which are of the
same order, according to 1 Poster. But it was from the authority of the
Sacred Scriptures that He proved to them the truth of His Resurrection,
which authority is the basis of faith, when He said: "All things must
needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the prophets, and
in the Psalms, concerning Me": as is set forth Lk. 24:44.
But if the term "proof" be taken in the second sense, then Christ is
said to have demonstrated His Resurrection by proofs, inasmuch as by most
evident signs He showed that He was truly risen. Hence where our version
has "by many proofs," the Greek text, instead of proof has {tekmerion},
i.e. "an evident sign affording positive proof" [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii].
Now Christ showed these signs of the Resurrection to His disciples, for
two reasons. First, because their hearts were not disposed so as to
accept readily the faith in the Resurrection. Hence He says Himself (Lk. 24:25): "O foolish and slow of heart to believe": and (Mk. 16:14): "He
upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart." Secondly,
that their testimony might be rendered more efficacious through the signs
shown them, according to 1 Jn. 1:1,3: "That which we have seen, and have
heard, and our hands have handled . . . we declare."
Reply to Objection 1: Ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human
reason, which are useless for demonstrating things of faith, as was shown
above.
Reply to Objection 2: The merit of faith arises from this, that at God's bidding
man believes what he does not see. Accordingly, only that reason debars
merit of faith which enables one to see by knowledge what is proposed for
belief: and this is demonstrative argument. But Christ did not make use
of any such argument for demonstrating His Resurrection.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated already (ad 2), the merit of beatitude, which
comes of faith, is not entirely excluded except a man refuse to believe
only such things as he can see. But for a man to believe from visible
signs the things he does not see, does not entirely deprive him of faith
nor of the merit of faith: just as Thomas, to whom it was said (Jn. 20:29): "'Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed,' saw one
thing and believed another" [*Gregory, Hom. xxvi]: the wounds were what
he saw, God was the object of His belief. But his is the more perfect
faith who does not require such helps for belief. Hence, to put to shame
the faith of some men, our Lord said (Jn. 4:48): "Unless you see signs
and wonders, you believe not." From this one can learn how they who are
so ready to believe God, even without beholding signs, are blessed in
comparison with them who do not believe except they see the like.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the proofs which Christ made use of did not
sufficiently manifest the truth of His Resurrection. For after the
Resurrection Christ showed nothing to His disciples which angels
appearing to men did not or could not show; because angels have
frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect, have spoken and
lived with them, and eaten with them, just as if they were truly men, as
is evident from Genesis 18, of the angels whom Abraham entertained. and
in the Book of Tobias, of the angel who "conducted" him "and brought" him
back. Nevertheless, angels have not true bodies naturally united to them;
which is required for a resurrection. Consequently, the signs which
Christ showed His disciples were not sufficient for manifesting His
Resurrection.
Objection 2: Further, Christ rose again gloriously, that is, having a human
nature with glory. But some of the things which Christ showed to His
disciples seem contrary to human nature, as for instance, that "He
vanished out of their sight," and entered in among them "when the doors
were shut": and some other things seem contrary to glory, as for
instance, that He ate and drank, and bore the scars of His wounds.
Consequently, it seems that those proofs were neither sufficient nor
fitting for establishing faith in the Resurrection.
Objection 3: Further, after the Resurrection Christ's body was such that it
ought not to be touched by mortal man; hence He said to Magdalen (Jn. 20:17): "Do not touch Me; for I am not yet ascended to My Father."
Consequently, it was not fitting for manifesting the truth of His
Resurrection, that He should permit Himself to be handled by His
disciples.
Objection 4: Further, clarity seems to be the principal of the qualities of a
glorified body: yet He gave no sign thereof in His Resurrection.
Therefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing the
quality of Christ's Resurrection.
Objection 5: [*This objection is wanting in the older codices, and in the text
of the Leonine edition, which, however, gives it in a note as taken from
one of the more recent codices of the Vatican.]
Further, the angels introduced as witnesses for the Resurrection seem
insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the Evangelists.
Because in Matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the
stone rolled back, while Mark states that he was seen after the women had
entered the tomb; and again, whereas these mention one angel, John says
that there were two sitting, and Luke says that there were two standing.
Consequently, the arguments for the Resurrection do not seem to agree.
On the contrary, Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, "ordereth all things
sweetly" and in a fitting manner, according to Wis. 8:1.
I answer that, Christ manifested His Resurrection in two ways: namely,
by testimony; and by proof or sign: and each manifestation was sufficient
in its own class. For in order to manifest His Resurrection He made use
of a double testimony, neither of which can be rebutted. The first of
these was the angels' testimony, who announced the Resurrection to the
women, as is seen in all the Evangelists: the other was the testimony of
the Scriptures, which He set before them to show the truth of the
Resurrection, as is narrated in the last chapter of Luke.
Again, the proofs were sufficient for showing that the Resurrection was
both true and glorious. That it was a true Resurrection He shows first on
the part of the body; and this He shows in three respects; first of all,
that it was a true and solid body, and not phantastic or rarefied, like
the air. And He establishes this by offering His body to be handled;
hence He says in the last chapter of Luke (39): "Handle and see; for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Secondly, He
shows that it was a human body, by presenting His true features for them
to behold. Thirdly, He shows that it was identically the same body which
He had before, by showing them the scars of the wounds; hence, as we read
in the last chapter of Luke (39) he said to them: "See My hands and feet,
that it is I Myself."
Secondly, He showed them the truth of His Resurrection on the part of
His soul reunited with His body: and He showed this by the works of the
threefold life. First of all, in the operations of the nutritive life, by
eating and drinking with His disciples, as we read in the last chapter of
Luke. Secondly, in the works of the sensitive life, by replying to His
disciples' questions, and by greeting them when they were in His
presence, showing thereby that He both saw and heard; thirdly, in the
works of the intellective life by their conversing with Him, and
discoursing on the Scriptures. And, in order that nothing might be
wanting to make the manifestation complete, He also showed that He had
the Divine Nature, by working the miracle of the draught of fishes, and
further by ascending into heaven while they were beholding Him: because,
according to Jn. 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that
descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven."
He also showed His disciples the glory of His Resurrection by entering in among them when the doors were closed: as Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "Our Lord allowed them to handle His flesh which He had brought through closed doors, to show that His body was of the same nature but of different glory." It likewise was part of the property of glory that "He vanished suddenly from their eyes," as related in the last chapter of Luke; because thereby it was shown that it lay in His power to be seen or not seen; and this belongs to a glorified body, as stated above (Question [54], Article [1], ad 2, Article [2], ad 1).
Reply to Objection 1: Each separate argument would not suffice of itself for
showing perfectly Christ's Resurrection, yet all taken collectively
establish it completely, especially owing to the testimonies of the
Scriptures, the sayings of the angels, and even Christ's own assertion
supported by miracles. As to the angels who appeared, they did not say
they were men, as Christ asserted that He was truly a man. Moreover, the
manner of eating was different in Christ and the angels: for since the
bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated, there was
no true eating, although the food was really masticated and passed into
the interior of the assumed body: hence the angels said to Tobias
(12:18,19): "When I was with you . . . I seemed indeed to eat and drink
with you; but I use an invisible meat." But since Christ's body was truly
animated, His eating was genuine. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei
xiii), "it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken
away from the bodies of them who rise again." Hence Bede says on Lk.
24:41: "Christ ate because He could, not because He needed."
Reply to Objection 2: As was observed above, some proofs were employed by Christ
to prove the truth of His human nature, and others to show forth His
glory in rising again. But the condition of human nature, as considered
in itself, namely, as to its present state, is opposite to the condition
of glory, as is said in 1 Cor. 15:43: "It is sown in weakness, it shall
rise in power." Consequently, the proofs brought forward for showing the
condition of glory, seem to be in opposition to nature, not absolutely,
but according to the present state, and conversely. Hence Gregory says
(Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "The Lord manifested two wonders, which are
mutually contrary according to human reason, when after the Resurrection
He showed His body as incorruptible and at the same time palpable."
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxxi super Joan.), "these words
of our Lord, 'Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father,'"
show "that in that woman there is a figure of the Church of the Gentiles,
which did not believe in Christ until He was ascended to the Father. Or
Jesus would have men to believe in Him, i.e. to touch Him spiritually, as
being Himself one with the Father. For to that man's innermost
perceptions He is, in some sort, ascended unto the Father, who has become
so far proficient in Him, as to recognize in Him the equal with the
Father . . . whereas she as yet believed in Him but carnally, since she
wept for Him as for a man." But when one reads elsewhere of Mary having
touched Him, when with the other women, she "'came up and took hold of
His feet,' that matters little," as Severianus says [*Chrysologus, Serm.
lxxvi], "for, the first act relates to figure, the other to sex; the
former is of Divine grace, the latter of human nature." Or as Chrysostom
says (Hom. lxxxvi in Joan.): "This woman wanted to converse with Christ
just as before the Passion, and out of joy was thinking of nothing great,
although Christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising again." And
therefore He said: "I have not yet ascended to My Father"; as if to say:
"Do not suppose I am leading an earthly life; for if you see Me upon
earth, it is because I have not yet ascended to My Father, but I am going
to ascend shortly." Hence He goes on to say: "I ascend to My Father, and
to your Father."
Reply to Objection 4: As Augustine says ad Orosium (Dial. lxv, Qq.): "Our Lord
rose in clarified flesh; yet He did not wish to appear before the
disciples in that condition of clarity, because their eyes could not
gaze upon that brilliancy. For if before He died for us and rose again
the disciples could not look upon Him when He was transfigured upon the
mountain, how much less were they able to gaze upon Him when our Lord's
flesh was glorified." It must also be borne in mind that after His
Resurrection our Lord wished especially to show that He was the same as
had died; which the manifestation of His brightness would have hindered
considerably: because change of features shows more than anything else
the difference in the person seen: and this is because sight specially
judges of the common sensibles, among which is one and many, or the same
and different. But before the Passion, lest His disciples might despise
its weakness, Christ meant to show them the glory of His majesty; and
this the brightness of the body specially indicates. Consequently, before
the Passion He showed the disciples His glory by brightness, but after
the Resurrection by other tokens.
Reply to Objection 5: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "We can
understand one angel to have been seen by the women, according to both
Matthew and Mark, if we take them as having entered the sepulchre, that
is, into some sort of walled enclosure, and that there they saw an angel
sitting upon the stone which was rolled back from the monument, as
Matthew says; and that this is Mark's expression---'sitting on the right
side'; afterwards when they scanned the spot where the Lord's body had
lain, they beheld two angels, who were at first seated, as John says, and
who afterwards rose so as to be seen standing, as Luke relates."