Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 92 (1/2)
Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 53, A. 3), Christ rose to the immortal life of glory. But such is the disposition of a glorified body that it is spiritual, i.e. subject to the spirit, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:44). Now in order for the body to be entirely subject to the spirit, it is necessary for the body's every action to be subject to the will of the spirit. Again, that an object be seen is due to the action of the visible object upon the sight, as the Philosopher shows (De Anima ii). Consequently, whoever has a glorified body has it in his power to be seen when he so wishes, and not to be seen when he does not wish it. Moreover Christ had this not only from the condition of His glorified body, but also from the power of His G.o.dhead, by which power it may happen that even bodies not glorified are miraculously unseen: as was by a miracle bestowed on the blessed Bartholomew, that ”if he wished he could be seen, and not be seen if he did not wish it” [*Apocryphal Historia Apost. viii, 2]. Christ, then, is said to have vanished from the eyes of the disciples, not as though He were corrupted or dissolved into invisible elements; but because He ceased, of His own will, to be seen by them, either while He was present or while He was departing by the gift of agility.
Reply Obj. 3: As Severia.n.u.s [*Peter Chrysologus: Serm. lx.x.xii] says in a sermon for Easter: ”Let no one suppose that Christ changed His features at the Resurrection.” This is to be understood of the outline of His members; since there was nothing out of keeping or deformed in the body of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost, that had to be righted at the Resurrection. Nevertheless He received the glory of clarity in the Resurrection: accordingly the same writer adds: ”but the semblance is changed, when, ceasing to be mortal, it becomes immortal; so that it acquired the glory of countenance, without losing the substance of the countenance.” Yet He did not come to those disciples in glorified appearance; but, as it lay in His power for His body to be seen or not, so it was within His power to present to the eyes of the beholders His form either glorified or not glorified, or partly glorified and partly not, or in any fas.h.i.+on whatsoever. Still it requires but a slight difference for anyone to seem to appear another shape.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 2]
Whether Christ's Body Rose Glorified?
[*Some editions give this article as the third, following the order of the introduction to the question. But it is evident from the first sentence of the body of A. 3 (A. 2 in the aforesaid editions), that the order of the Leonine edition is correct.]
Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies s.h.i.+ne, according to Matt. 13:43: ”Then shall the just s.h.i.+ne as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” But s.h.i.+ning bodies are seen under the aspect of light, but not of color.
Therefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that it was not a glorified one.
Obj. 2: Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as He Himself says in Luke 24:39: ”Handle, and see.” Now Gregory says (Hom.
in Evang. xxvi) that ”what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible cannot be handled.” Consequently, Christ's body was not glorified.
Obj. 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is clear from 1 Cor. 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that Christ's body was not glorified.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): ”He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory.”
_I answer that,_ Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: ”It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory.” Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Pa.s.sion. Hence He said (John 12:27): ”Now is My soul troubled,” which refers to the Pa.s.sion; and later He adds: ”Father, glorify Thy name,”
whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Q. 34, A. 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the G.o.dhead. But, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pa.s.s from His soul to His body, in order that by the Pa.s.sion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption.
Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Pa.s.sion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Reply Obj. 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep.
ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored gla.s.s derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness.
And it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
Reply Obj. 2: We say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (Suppl., Q. 82, A. 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): ”G.o.d made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beat.i.tude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor of incorruption.” And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): ”Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection.”
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): ”After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power.” For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: ”The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power.” Hence after the Resurrection He ate, ”not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body.” Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 3]
Whether Christ's Body Rose Again Entire?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire.
For flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas Christ seems not to have had both, for it is written (1 Cor. 15:50): ”Flesh and blood can not possess the kingdom of G.o.d.” But Christ rose in the glory of the kingdom of G.o.d. Therefore it seems that He did not have flesh and blood.
Obj. 2: Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if Christ had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors, from which corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow, then, that Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly.
Therefore Christ did not have flesh and blood.
Obj. 3: Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to heaven.
But some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches.
Therefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its parts.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Luke 24:39) while addressing His disciples after the Resurrection: ”A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have.”
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), Christ's body in the Resurrection was ”of the same nature, but differed in glory.”