Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For a gloss of Bede on Mt. 17:2, "He was transfigured before them," says: "In His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of immortality, but clarity like to that of future immortality." But the clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ showed to His disciples was not the clarity of glory.

Objection 2: Further, on Lk. 9:27 "(That) shall not taste death unless they see the kingdom of God," Bede's gloss says: "That is, the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of future beatitude." But the image of a thing is not the thing itself. Therefore this was not the clarity of beatitude.

Objection 3: Further, the clarity of glory is only in a human body. But this clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in Christ's body, but also in His garments, and in "the bright cloud" which "overshaded" the disciples. Therefore it seems that this was not the clarity of glory.

On the contrary, Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured before them" (Mt. 17:2): "He appeared to the Apostles such as He will appear on the day of judgment." And on Mt. 16:28, "Till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom," Chrysostom says: "Wishing to show with what kind of glory He is afterwards to come, so far as it was possible for them to learn it, He showed it to them in their present life, that they might not grieve even over the death of their Lord."

I answer that, The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of being. For the clarity of the glorified body is derived from that of the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Diosc. cxviii). And in like manner the clarity of Christ's body in His transfiguration was derived from His God. head, as Damascene says (Orat. de Transfig.) and from the glory of His soul. That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment of Christ's conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that, as stated above (Question 14, Article 1, ad 2), He might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This did not, however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body. But in Christ's transfiguration clarity overflowed from His Godhead and from His soul into His body, not as an immanent quality affecting His very body, but rather after the manner of a transient passion, as when the air is lit up by the sun. Consequently the refulgence, which appeared in Christ's body then, was miraculous: just as was the fact of His walking on the waves of the sea. Hence Dionysius says (Ep. ad Cai. iv): "Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of material and earthly feet."

Wherefore we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor said, that Christ assumed the gift of clarity in the transfiguration, of agility in walking on the sea, and of subtlety in coming forth from the Virgin's closed womb: because the gifts are immanent qualities of a glorified body. On the contrary, whatever pertained to the gifts, that He had miraculously. The same is to be said, as to the soul, of the vision in which Paul saw God in a rapture, as we have stated in the 2.2, Question 175, Article 3, ad 2.

Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified body, since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of impassibility.

Reply to Objection 2: This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not as though it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a kind of image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of which the body will be glorious.

Reply to Objection 3: Just as the clarity which was in Christ's body was a representation of His body's future clarity, so the clarity which was in His garments signified the future clarity of the saints, which will be surpassed by that of Christ, just as the brightness of the snow is surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxii) that Christ's garments became resplendent, "because in the height of heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to Him in the refulgence of righteousness. For His garments signify the righteous, because He will unite them to Himself," according to Is. 49:18: "Thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament."

The bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the "power of the Father," as Origen says (Tract. iii in Matth.), by which in the glory to come the saints will be covered. Or, again, it may be said fittingly that it signifies the clarity of the world redeemed, which clarity will cover the saints as a tent. Hence when Peter proposed to make tents, "a bright cloud overshaded" the disciples.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod illa claritas non fuit claritas gloriosa.

Dicit enim quaedam Glossa bedae, super illud Matth. XVII, transfiguratus est coram eis, in corpore, inquit, mortali ostendit, non immortalitatem, sed claritatem similem futurae immortalitati.

Sed claritas gloriae est claritas immortalitatis.

Non ergo illa claritas quam christus discipulis ostendit, fuit claritas gloriae.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, super illud Luc. IX, non gustabunt mortem nisi videant regnum dei, dicit Glossa bedae, idest, glorificationem corporis in imaginaria repraesentatione futurae beatitudinis.

Sed imago alicuius rei non est ipsa res.

Ergo claritas illa non fuit claritas beatitudinis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, claritas gloriae non est nisi in corpore humano.

Sed claritas illa transfigurationis apparuit non solum in corpore christi, sed etiam in vestimentis eius, et in nube lucida quae discipulos obumbravit. Ergo videtur quod illa claritas non fuit claritas gloriae.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod, super illud Matth. XVII, transfiguratus est ante eos, dicit Hieronymus, qualis futurus est tempore iudicii, talis apostolis apparuit.

Et super illud Matth. XVI, donec videant filium hominis venientem in regno suo, dicit chrysostomus, volens monstrare quid est illa gloria in qua postea venturus est, eis in praesenti vita revelavit, sicut possibile erat eos discere, ut neque in domini morte iam doleant.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod claritas illa quam christus in transfiguratione assumpsit, fuit claritas gloriae quantum ad essentiam, non tamen quantum ad modum essendi.

Claritas enim corporis gloriosi derivatur ab animae claritate, sicut Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad dioscorum.

Et similiter claritas corporis christi in transfiguratione derivata est a divinitate ipsius, ut Damascenus dicit, et a gloria animae eius. Quod enim a principio conceptionis christi gloria animae non redundaret ad corpus, ex quadam dispensatione divina factum est, ut in corpore passibili nostrae redemptionis expleret mysteria, sicut supra dictum est.

Non tamen per hoc adempta est potestas christo derivandi gloriam animae ad corpus. Et hoc quidem fecit, quantum ad claritatem, in transfiguratione, aliter tamen quam in corpore glorificato. Nam ad corpus glorificatum redundat claritas ab anima sicut quaedam qualitas permanens corpus afficiens. Unde fulgere corporaliter non est miraculosum in corpore glorioso. Sed ad corpus christi in transfiguratione derivata est claritas a divinitate et anima eius, non per modum qualitatis immanentis et afficientis ipsum corpus, sed magis per modum passionis transeuntis, sicut cum aer illuminatur a sole. Unde ille fulgor tunc in corpore christi apparens miraculosus fuit, sicut et hoc ipsum quod ambulavit super undas maris.

Unde dionysius dicit, in epistola IV, ad caium, super hominem operatur christus ea quae sunt hominis, et hoc monstrat virgo supernaturaliter concipiens, et aqua instabilis materialium et terrenorum pedum sustinens gravitatem.

Unde non est dicendum, sicut Hugo de sancto victore dixit, quod christus assumpserit dotes claritatis in transfiguratione, agilitatis ambulando super mare, et subtilitatis egrediendo de clauso utero virginis, quia dos nominat quandam qualitatem immanentem corpori glorioso.

Sed miraculose habuit ea quae pertinent ad dotes. Et est simile, quantum ad animam, de visione qua Paulus vidit deum in raptu, ut in secunda parte dictum est.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex illo verbo non ostenditur quod claritas christi non fuerit claritas gloriae, sed quod non fuit claritas corporis gloriosi, quia corpus christi nondum erat immortale.

Sicut enim dispensative factum est ut in christo gloria animae non redundaret ad corpus, ita fieri potuit dispensative ut redundaret quantum ad dotem claritatis, et non quantum ad dotem impassibilitatis.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod illa claritas dicitur imaginaria fuisse, non quin esset vera claritas gloriae, sed quia erat quaedam imago repraesentans illam gloriae perfectionem secundum quam corpus erit gloriosum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut claritas quae erat in corpore christi repraesentabat futuram claritatem corporis eius, ita claritas vestimentorum eius designat futuram claritatem sanctorum, quae superabitur a claritate christi, sicut candor nivis superatur a candore solis.

Unde Gregorius dicit, XXXII Moral., quod vestimenta christi facta sunt splendentia, quia in supernae claritatis culmine sancti omnes ei luce iustitiae fulgentes adhaerebunt.

Vestium enim nomine iustos, quos sibi adiunget, significat, secundum illud Isaiae XLIX, his omnibus velut ornamento vestieris.

Nubes autem lucida significat spiritus sancti gloriam, vel virtutem paternam, ut Origenes dicit, per quam sancti in futura gloria protegentur.

Quamvis etiam convenienter significare posset claritatem mundi innovati, quae erit sanctorum tabernaculum. Unde, Petro disponente tabernacula facere, nubes lucida discipulos obumbravit.