_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) Christ"s Resurrection was necessary for the instruction of our faith. But our faith regards Christ"s G.o.dhead and humanity, for it is not enough to believe the one without the other, as is evident from what has been said (Q. 36, A. 4; cf. II-II, Q. 2, AA. 7, 8). Consequently, in order that our faith in the truth of His G.o.dhead might be confirmed it was necessary that He should rise speedily, and that His Resurrection should not be deferred until the end of the world. But to confirm our faith regarding the truth of His humanity and death, it was needful that there should be some interval between His death and rising. For if He had risen directly after death, it might seem that His death was not genuine and consequently neither would His Resurrection be true. But to establish the truth of Christ"s death, it was enough for His rising to be deferred until the third day, for within that time some signs of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is alive.
Furthermore, by His rising on the third day, the perfection of the number "three" is commended, which is "the number of everything," as having "beginning, middle, and end," as is said in De Coelo i. Again in the mystical sense we are taught that Christ by "His one death"
(i.e. of the body) which was light, by reason of His righteousness, "destroyed our two deaths" (i.e. of soul and body), which are as darkness on account of sin; consequently, He remained in death for one day and two nights, as Augustine observes (De Trin. iv).
And thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the Resurrection: for the first was before the Law; the second under the Law; and the third under grace. Moreover the third state of the saints began with the Resurrection of Christ: for, the first was under figures of the Law; the second under the truth of faith; while the third will be in the eternity of glory, which Christ inaugurated by rising again.
Reply Obj. 1: The head and members are likened in nature, but not in power; because the power of the head is more excellent than that of the members. Accordingly, to show forth the excellence of Christ"s power, it was fitting that He should rise on the third day, while the resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world.
Reply Obj. 2: Detention implies a certain compulsion. But Christ was not held fast by any necessity of death, but was "free among the dead": and therefore He abode a while in death, not as one held fast, but of His own will, just so long as He deemed necessary for the instruction of our faith. And a task is said to be done "at once"
which is performed within a short s.p.a.ce of time.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 51, A. 4, ad 1, 2), Christ rose early when the day was beginning to dawn, to denote that by His Resurrection He brought us to the light of glory; just as He died when the day was drawing to its close, and nearing to darkness, in order to signify that by His death He would destroy the darkness of sin and its punishment. Nevertheless He is said to have risen on the third day, taking day as a natural day which contains twenty-four hours. And as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The night until the dawn, when the Lord"s Resurrection was proclaimed, belongs to the third day. Because G.o.d, who made the light to shine forth from darkness, in order that by the grace of the New Testament and partaking of Christ"s rising we might hear this--"once ye were darkness, but now light in the Lord"--insinuates in a measure to us that day draws its origin from night: for, as the first days are computed from light to darkness on account of man"s coming fall, so these days are reckoned from darkness to light owing to man"s restoration." And so it is evident that even if He had risen at midnight, He could be said to have risen on the third day, taking it as a natural day. But now that He rose early, it can be affirmed that He rose on the third day, even taking the artificial day which is caused by the sun"s presence, because the sun had already begun to brighten the sky. Hence it is written (Mk. 16:2) that "the women come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen"; which is not contrary to John"s statement "when it was yet dark," as Augustine says (De Cons.
Evang. iii), "because, as the day advances the more the light rises, the more are the remaining shadows dispelled." But when Mark says ""the sun being now risen," it is not to be taken as if the sun were already apparent over the horizon, but as coming presently into those parts."
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 3]
Whether Christ Was the First to Rise from the Dead?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not the first to rise from the dead, because we read in the Old Testament of some persons raised to life by Elias and Eliseus, according to Heb. 11:35: "Women received their dead raised to life again": also Christ before His Pa.s.sion raised three dead persons to life. Therefore Christ was not the first to rise from the dead.
Obj. 2: Further, among the other miracles which happened during the Pa.s.sion, it is narrated (Matt. 27:52) that "the monuments were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had slept rose again."
Therefore Christ was not the first to rise from the dead.
Obj. 3: Further, as Christ by His own rising is the cause of our resurrection, so by His grace He is the cause of our grace, according to John 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." But in point of time some others had grace previous to Christ--for instance all the fathers of the Old Testament. Therefore some others came to the resurrection of the body before Christ.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 15:20): "Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep--because," says the gloss, "He rose first in point of time and dignity."
_I answer that,_ Resurrection is a restoring from death to life. Now a man is s.n.a.t.c.hed from death in two ways: first of all, from actual death, so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually dead: in another way, so that he is not only rescued from death, but from the necessity, nay more, from the possibility of dying again.
Such is a true and perfect resurrection, because so long as a man lives, subject to the necessity of dying, death has dominion over him in a measure, according to Rom. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead because of sin." Furthermore, what has the possibility of existence, is said to exist in some respect, that is, in potentiality. Thus it is evident that the resurrection, whereby one is rescued from actual death only, is but an imperfect one.
Consequently, speaking of perfect resurrection, Christ is the first of them who rise, because by rising He was the first to attain life utterly immortal, according to Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more." But by an imperfect resurrection, some others have risen before Christ, so as to be a kind of figure of His Resurrection.
And thus the answer to the first objection is clear: because both those raised from the dead in the old Testament, and those raised by Christ, so returned to life that they had to die again.
Reply Obj. 2: There are two opinions regarding them who rose with Christ. Some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more, because it would be a greater torment for them to die a second time than not to rise at all. According to this view, as Jerome observes on Matt. 27:52, 53, we must understand that "they had not risen before our Lord rose." Hence the Evangelist says that "coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection, they came into the holy city, and appeared to many." But Augustine (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv) while giving this opinion, says: "I know that it appears some, that by the death of Christ the Lord the same resurrection was bestowed upon the righteous as is promised to us in the end; and if they slept not again by laying aside their bodies, it remains to be seen how Christ can be understood to be "the first-born of the dead," if so many preceded Him unto that resurrection. Now if reply be made that this is said by antic.i.p.ation, so that the monuments be understood to have been opened by the earthquake while Christ was still hanging on the cross, but that the bodies of the just did not rise then but after He had risen, the difficulty still arises--how is it that Peter a.s.serts that it was predicted not of David but of Christ, that His body would not see corruption, since David"s tomb was in their midst; and thus he did not convince them, if David"s body was no longer there; for even if he had risen soon after his death, and his flesh had not seen corruption, his tomb might nevertheless remain. Now it seems hard that David from whose seed Christ is descended, was not in that rising of the just, if an eternal rising was conferred upon them.
Also that saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:40) regarding the ancient just would be hard to explain, "that they should not be perfected without us," if they were already established in that incorruption of the resurrection which is promised at the end when we shall be made perfect": so that Augustine would seem to think that they rose to die again. In this sense Jerome also in commenting on Matthew (27:52, 53) says: "As Lazarus rose, so also many of the bodies of the saints rose, that they might bear witness to the risen Christ." Nevertheless in a sermon for the a.s.sumption [*Ep. ix ad Paul. et Eustoch.; among the supposit.i.tious works ascribed to St.
Jerome] he seems to leave the matter doubtful. But Augustine"s reasons seem to be much more cogent.
Reply Obj. 3: As everything preceding Christ"s coming was preparatory for Christ, so is grace a disposition for glory. Consequently, it behooved all things appertaining to glory, whether they regard the soul, as the perfect fruition of G.o.d, or whether they regard the body, as the glorious resurrection, to be first in Christ as the author of glory: but that grace should be first in those that were ordained unto Christ.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Was the Cause of His Own Resurrection?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own Resurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to Acts 2:24: "Whom G.o.d hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of h.e.l.l": and Rom. 8:11: "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies." Therefore Christ is not the cause of His own Resurrection.
Obj. 2: Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that of which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Pa.s.sion merited the Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness of the Pa.s.sion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the Resurrection." Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up again, according to Ps. 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up again." Therefore He was not the cause of His rising again.
Obj. 3: Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not the soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death.
But the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is n.o.bler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His Resurrection.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 10:18): "No one taketh My soul from Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again." But to rise is nothing else than to take the soul up again. Consequently, it appears that Christ rose again of His own power.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 50, AA. 2, 3) in consequence of death Christ"s G.o.dhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: first, in respect of His G.o.dhead; secondly, in respect of His created nature. Therefore, according to the virtue of the G.o.dhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of G.o.d."
But if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ to be raised up by G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 1: The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ by praying besought and merited His Resurrection, as man and not as G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 3: According to its created nature Christ"s body is not more powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it is more powerful. Again the soul by reason of the G.o.dhead united to it is more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature.
Consequently, it was by the Divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each other, but not by the power of their created nature.
_______________________
QUESTION 54
OF THE QUALITY OF CHRIST RISING AGAIN (In Four Articles)
We have now to consider the quality of the rising Christ, which presents four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?
(2) Whether He rose with His complete body?
(3) Whether His was a glorified body?
(4) Of the scars which showed in His body.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 1]
Whether Christ Had a True Body After His Resurrection?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection. For a true body cannot be in the same place at the same time with another body. But after the Resurrection Christ"s body was with another at the same time in the same place: since He entered among the disciples "the doors being shut," as is related in John 20:26. Therefore it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection.
Obj. 2: Further, a true body does not vanish from the beholder"s sight unless perchance it be corrupted. But Christ"s body "vanished out of the sight" of the disciples as they gazed upon Him, as is related in Luke 24:31. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection.
Obj. 3: Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But Christ"s body appeared before the disciples "in another shape," as is evident from Mk. 15:12. Therefore it seems that Christ did not possess a true body after His Resurrection.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 24:37) that when Christ appeared to His disciples "they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit," as if He had not a true but an imaginary body: but to remove their fears He presently added: "Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Consequently, He had not an imaginary but a true body.
_I answer that,_ As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to rise, which fell. But Christ"s body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the body"s nature is from its form it follows that Christ"s body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before. But had His been an imaginary body, then His Resurrection would not have been true, but apparent.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ"s body after His Resurrection, not by miracle but from its glorified condition, as some say, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut, thus existing with another body in the same place. But whether a glorified body can have this from some hidden property, so as to be with another body at the same time in the same place, will be discussed later (Suppl., Q. 83, A. 4) when the common resurrection will be dealt with. For the present let it suffice to say that it was not from any property within the body, but by virtue of the G.o.dhead united to it, that this body, although a true one, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut.
Accordingly Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (ccxlvii) that some men argue in this fashion: "If it were a body; if what rose from the sepulchre were what hung upon the tree, how could it enter through closed doors?" And he answers: "If you understand how, it is no miracle: where reason fails, faith abounds." And (Tract. cxxi super Joan.) he says: "Closed doors were no obstacle to the substance of a Body wherein was the G.o.dhead; for truly He could enter in by doors not open, in whose Birth His Mother"s virginity remained inviolate."
And Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of Easter (xxvi in Evang.).