Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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."

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod christus non debuerit discipulis in alia effigie apparere. Non enim potest apparere secundum veritatem nisi quod est. Sed in christo non fuit nisi una effigies. Si ergo christus in alia apparuit, non fuit apparitio vera, sed ficta. Hoc autem est inconveniens, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest., si fallit, veritas non est; est autem veritas christus.

Ergo videtur quod christus non debuit discipulis in alia effigie apparere.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, nihil potest in alia effigie apparere quam habeat, nisi oculi intuentium aliquibus praestigiis detineantur.

Huiusmodi autem praestigia, cum fiant magicis artibus, non conveniunt christo, secundum illud II Cor. VI, quae conventio christi ad belial? ergo videtur quod non debuit in alia effigie apparere.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut per sacram Scripturam nostra fides certificatur, ita discipuli certificati sunt de fide resurrectionis per christi apparitiones.

Sed, sicut Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Hieronymum si vel unum mendacium in sacra Scriptura recipiatur, infirmabitur tota sacrae Scripturae auctoritas.

Ergo, si vel in una apparitione christus discipulis apparuit aliter quam esset, infirmabitur quidquid post resurrectionem viderunt in christo. Quod est inconveniens.

Non ergo debuit in alia effigie apparere.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur marci ult., post haec, duobus ex eis ambulantibus ostensus est in alia effigie, euntibus in villam.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, resurrectio christi manifestanda fuit hominibus per modum quo eis divina revelantur.

Innotescunt autem divina hominibus secundum quod diversimode sunt affecti. Nam illi qui habent mentem bene dispositam, secundum veritatem divina percipiunt. Illi autem qui habent mentem non bene dispositam, divina percipiunt cum quadam confusione dubietatis vel erroris, animalis enim homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus dei, ut dicitur I Cor. II.

Et ideo christus quibusdam, ad credendum dispositis, post resurrectionem apparuit in sua effigie. Illis autem in alia effigie apparuit qui iam videbantur circa fidem tepescere, unde dicebant, nos sperabamus quia ipse esset redempturus Israel.

Unde Gregorius dicit, in homilia, quod talem se eis exhibuit in corpore qualis apud illos erat in mente.

Quia enim adhuc in eorum cordibus peregrinus erat a fide, ire se longius finxit, scilicet ac si esset peregrinus.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de quaestionibus evang., non omne quod fingimus, mendacium est. Sed quando id fingimus quod nihil significat, tunc est mendacium. Cum autem fictio nostra refertur ad aliquam significationem, non est mendacium, sed aliqua figura veritatis. Alioquin omnia quae a sapientibus et sanctis viris, vel etiam ab ipso domino, figurate dicta sunt, mendacia reputabuntur, quia, secundum usitatum intellectum, non consistit veritas in talibus dictis. Sicut autem dicta, ita etiam finguntur facta sine mendacio, ad aliquam rem significandam.

Et ita factum est hic, ut dictum est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu evang., dominus poterat transformare carnem suam, ut alia re vera esset effigies ab illa quam solebant intueri, quandoquidem et ante passionem suam transformatus est in monte, ut facies eius claresceret sicut sol. Sed non ita nunc factum est. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse, ne agnosceretur iesus.

Unde Luc. Ult. Dicitur quod oculi eorum tenebantur, ne eum agnoscerent.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa sequeretur si ab alienae effigiei aspectu non fuissent reducti ad vere videndum christi effigiem.

Sicut enim Augustinus ibidem dicit, tantum a christo facta est permissio, ut scilicet praedicto modo oculi eorum tenerentur, usque ad sacramentum panis, ut, unitate corporis eius participata, removeri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, ut christus possit agnosci.

Unde ibidem subditur quod aperti sunt oculi eorum et cognoverunt eum, non quod ante clausis oculis ambularent; sed inerat aliquid quo non sinerentur agnoscere quod videbant, quod scilicet caligo et aliquis humor solet efficere.