Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies shine, according to Mt. 13:43: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." But shining 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.

Objection 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 Lk. 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.

Objection 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 Passion. Hence He said (Jn. 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (Question 14, Article 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion 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 to Objection 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 glass 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 (Article 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 to Objection 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 (XP, Question 82, Article 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude 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 to Objection 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 Lk. 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.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus christi non resurrexerit gloriosum. Corpora enim gloriosa sunt fulgentia, secundum illud Matth. XIII, fulgebunt iusti sicut sol in regno patris eorum.

Sed corpora fulgida videntur secundum rationem lucis, non autem secundum rationem coloris. Cum ergo corpus christi visum fuerit sub coloris specie, sicut et prius videbatur, videtur quod non fuerit gloriosum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, corpus gloriosum est incorruptibile. Sed corpus christi non videtur fuisse incorruptibile. Fuit enim palpabile, sicut ipse dicit, Luc. Ult., palpate et videte.

Dicit autem Gregorius, in quadam homilia, quod corrumpi necesse est quod palpatur, et palpari non potest quod non corrumpitur.

Non ergo corpus christi fuit gloriosum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, corpus gloriosum non est animale, sed spirituale, ut patet I Cor. XV.

Sed corpus christi videtur animale fuisse post resurrectionem, quia cum discipulis manducavit et bibit, ut legitur Luc. Ult., et Ioan. Ult..

Ergo videtur quod corpus christi non fuerit gloriosum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, philipp. III, reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod corpus christi in resurrectione fuit gloriosum. Et hoc apparet triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia resurrectio christi fuit exemplar et causa nostrae resurrectionis, ut habetur I Cor. XV.

Sancti autem in resurrectione habebunt corpora gloriosa, sicut dicitur ibidem, seminatur in ignobilitate, surget in gloria.

Unde, cum causa sit potior causato et exemplar exemplato, multo magis corpus christi resurgentis fuit gloriosum. Secundo, quia per humilitatem passionis meruit gloriam resurrectionis.

Unde et ipse dicebat, nunc anima mea turbata est, quod pertinet ad passionem, et postea subdit, pater, clarifica nomen tuum, in quo petit gloriam resurrectionis.

Tertio quia, sicut supra habitum est, anima christi a principio suae conceptionis fuit gloriosa per fruitionem divinitatis perfectam. Est autem dispensative factum, sicut supra dictum est, ut ab anima gloria non redundaret in corpus, ad hoc quod mysterium nostrae redemptionis sua passione impleret.

Et ideo, peracto hoc mysterio passionis et mortis christi, anima christi statim in corpus, in resurrectione resumptum, suam gloriam derivavit. Et ita factum est corpus illud gloriosum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omne quod recipitur in aliquo, recipitur in eo secundum modum recipientis.

Quia igitur gloria corporis derivatur ab anima, ut Augustinus dicit in epistola ad dioscorum, fulgor seu claritas corporis gloriosi est secundum colorem humano corpori naturalem, sicut vitrum diversimode coloratum recipit splendorem ex illustratione solis secundum modum sui coloris.

Sicut autem in potestate hominis glorificati est ut corpus eius videatur vel non videatur, sicut dictum est; ita in potestate eius est quod claritas eius videatur vel non videatur. Unde potest in suo colore sine aliqua claritate videri. Et hoc modo christus discipulis post resurrectionem suam apparuit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod corpus aliquod dicitur esse palpabile, non solum ratione resistentiae, sed ratione spissitudinis suae.

Ad rarum autem et spissum sequuntur grave et leve, calidum et frigidum, et alia huiusmodi contraria, quae sunt principia corruptionis corporum elementarium. Unde corpus quod est palpabile humano tactu, est naturaliter corruptibile. Si autem sit aliquod corpus resistens tactui quod non sit dispositum secundum praedictas qualitates, quae sunt propria obiecta tactus humani, sicut est corpus caeleste, tale corpus non potest dici palpabile.

Corpus autem christi vere post resurrectionem fuit ex elementis compositum, habens in se tangibiles qualitates, secundum quod requirit natura corporis humani, et ideo naturaliter erat palpabile. Et si nihil aliud habuisset supra corporis humani naturam, fuisset etiam corruptibile. Habuit autem aliquid aliud quod ipsum incorruptibile reddidit, non quidem naturam caelestis corporis, ut quidam dicunt, de quo infra magis inquiretur; sed gloriam redundantem ab anima beata; quia, ut Augustinus dicit, ad dioscorum, tam potenti natura deus fecit animam ut ex eius plenissima beatitudine redundet in corpus plenitudo sanitatis, idest incorruptionis vigor.

Et ideo, sicut dicit Gregorius, ibidem, ostenditur corpus christi post resurrectionem fuisse eiusdem naturae, sed alterius gloriae.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIII de CIV. Dei, salvator noster, post resurrectionem, iam quidem in spirituali carne, sed tamen vera, cibum ac potum cum discipulis sumpsit, non alimentorum indigentia, sed ea qua hoc poterat potestate.

Ut enim beda dicit, super Luc., aliter absorbet aquam terra sitiens, aliter solis radius calens, illa indigentia, iste potentia.

Manducavit ergo post resurrectionem, non quasi cibo indigens, sed ut eo modo naturam corporis resurgentis adstrueret.

Et propter hoc, non sequitur quod fuerit eius corpus animale, quod est indigens cibo.