Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the proofs which Christ made use of did not sufficiently manifest the truth of His Resurrection. For after the Resurrection Christ showed nothing to His disciples which angels appearing to men did not or could not show; because angels have frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect, have spoken and lived with them, and eaten with them, just as if they were truly men, as is evident from Genesis 18, of the angels whom Abraham entertained. and in the Book of Tobias, of the angel who "conducted" him "and brought" him back. Nevertheless, angels have not true bodies naturally united to them; which is required for a resurrection. Consequently, the signs which Christ showed His disciples were not sufficient for manifesting His Resurrection.

Objection 2: Further, Christ rose again gloriously, that is, having a human nature with glory. But some of the things which Christ showed to His disciples seem contrary to human nature, as for instance, that "He vanished out of their sight," and entered in among them "when the doors were shut": and some other things seem contrary to glory, as for instance, that He ate and drank, and bore the scars of His wounds. Consequently, it seems that those proofs were neither sufficient nor fitting for establishing faith in the Resurrection.

Objection 3: Further, after the Resurrection Christ's body was such that it ought not to be touched by mortal man; hence He said to Magdalen (Jn. 20:17): "Do not touch Me; for I am not yet ascended to My Father." Consequently, it was not fitting for manifesting the truth of His Resurrection, that He should permit Himself to be handled by His disciples.

Objection 4: Further, clarity seems to be the principal of the qualities of a glorified body: yet He gave no sign thereof in His Resurrection. Therefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing the quality of Christ's Resurrection.

Objection 5:

Further, the angels introduced as witnesses for the Resurrection seem insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the Evangelists. Because in Matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the stone rolled back, while Mark states that he was seen after the women had entered the tomb; and again, whereas these mention one angel, John says that there were two sitting, and Luke says that there were two standing. Consequently, the arguments for the Resurrection do not seem to agree.

On the contrary, Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, "ordereth all things sweetly" and in a fitting manner, according to Wis. 8:1.

I answer that, Christ manifested His Resurrection in two ways: namely, by testimony; and by proof or sign: and each manifestation was sufficient in its own class. For in order to manifest His Resurrection He made use of a double testimony, neither of which can be rebutted. The first of these was the angels' testimony, who announced the Resurrection to the women, as is seen in all the Evangelists: the other was the testimony of the Scriptures, which He set before them to show the truth of the Resurrection, as is narrated in the last chapter of Luke.

Again, the proofs were sufficient for showing that the Resurrection was both true and glorious. That it was a true Resurrection He shows first on the part of the body; and this He shows in three respects; first of all, that it was a true and solid body, and not phantastic or rarefied, like the air. And He establishes this by offering His body to be handled; hence He says in the last chapter of Luke 39.: "Handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Secondly, He shows that it was a human body, by presenting His true features for them to behold. Thirdly, He shows that it was identically the same body which He had before, by showing them the scars of the wounds; hence, as we read in the last chapter of Luke 39. he said to them: "See My hands and feet, that it is I Myself."

Secondly, He showed them the truth of His Resurrection on the part of His soul reunited with His body: and He showed this by the works of the threefold life. First of all, in the operations of the nutritive life, by eating and drinking with His disciples, as we read in the last chapter of Luke. Secondly, in the works of the sensitive life, by replying to His disciples' questions, and by greeting them when they were in His presence, showing thereby that He both saw and heard; thirdly, in the works of the intellective life by their conversing with Him, and discoursing on the Scriptures. And, in order that nothing might be wanting to make the manifestation complete, He also showed that He had the Divine Nature, by working the miracle of the draught of fishes, and further by ascending into heaven while they were beholding Him: because, according to Jn. 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven."

He also showed His disciples the glory of His Resurrection by entering in among them when the doors were closed: as Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "Our Lord allowed them to handle His flesh which He had brought through closed doors, to show that His body was of the same nature but of different glory." It likewise was part of the property of glory that "He vanished suddenly from their eyes," as related in the last chapter of Luke; because thereby it was shown that it lay in His power to be seen or not seen; and this belongs to a glorified body, as stated above (Question 54, Article 1, ad 2, Article 2, ad 1).

Reply to Objection 1: Each separate argument would not suffice of itself for showing perfectly Christ's Resurrection, yet all taken collectively establish it completely, especially owing to the testimonies of the Scriptures, the sayings of the angels, and even Christ's own assertion supported by miracles. As to the angels who appeared, they did not say they were men, as Christ asserted that He was truly a man. Moreover, the manner of eating was different in Christ and the angels: for since the bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated, there was no true eating, although the food was really masticated and passed into the interior of the assumed body: hence the angels said to Tobias (12:18,19): "When I was with you . . . I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you; but I use an invisible meat." But since Christ's body was truly animated, His eating was genuine. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xiii), "it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken away from the bodies of them who rise again." Hence Bede says on Lk. 24:41: "Christ ate because He could, not because He needed."

Reply to Objection 2: As was observed above, some proofs were employed by Christ to prove the truth of His human nature, and others to show forth His glory in rising again. But the condition of human nature, as considered in itself, namely, as to its present state, is opposite to the condition of glory, as is said in 1 Cor. 15:43: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power." Consequently, the proofs brought forward for showing the condition of glory, seem to be in opposition to nature, not absolutely, but according to the present state, and conversely. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "The Lord manifested two wonders, which are mutually contrary according to human reason, when after the Resurrection He showed His body as incorruptible and at the same time palpable."

Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxxi super Joan.), "these words of our Lord, 'Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father,'" show "that in that woman there is a figure of the Church of the Gentiles, which did not believe in Christ until He was ascended to the Father. Or Jesus would have men to believe in Him, i.e. to touch Him spiritually, as being Himself one with the Father. For to that man's innermost perceptions He is, in some sort, ascended unto the Father, who has become so far proficient in Him, as to recognize in Him the equal with the Father . . . whereas she as yet believed in Him but carnally, since she wept for Him as for a man." But when one reads elsewhere of Mary having touched Him, when with the other women, she "'came up and took hold of His feet,' that matters little," as Severianus says , "for, the first act relates to figure, the other to sex; the former is of Divine grace, the latter of human nature." Or as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxvi in Joan.): "This woman wanted to converse with Christ just as before the Passion, and out of joy was thinking of nothing great, although Christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising again." And therefore He said: "I have not yet ascended to My Father"; as if to say: "Do not suppose I am leading an earthly life; for if you see Me upon earth, it is because I have not yet ascended to My Father, but I am going to ascend shortly." Hence He goes on to say: "I ascend to My Father, and to your Father."

Reply to Objection 4: As Augustine says ad Orosium (Dial. lxv, Qq.): "Our Lord rose in clarified flesh; yet He did not wish to appear before the disciples in that condition of clarity, because their eyes could not gaze upon that brilliancy. For if before He died for us and rose again the disciples could not look upon Him when He was transfigured upon the mountain, how much less were they able to gaze upon Him when our Lord's flesh was glorified." It must also be borne in mind that after His Resurrection our Lord wished especially to show that He was the same as had died; which the manifestation of His brightness would have hindered considerably: because change of features shows more than anything else the difference in the person seen: and this is because sight specially judges of the common sensibles, among which is one and many, or the same and different. But before the Passion, lest His disciples might despise its weakness, Christ meant to show them the glory of His majesty; and this the brightness of the body specially indicates. Consequently, before the Passion He showed the disciples His glory by brightness, but after the Resurrection by other tokens.

Reply to Objection 5: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "We can understand one angel to have been seen by the women, according to both Matthew and Mark, if we take them as having entered the sepulchre, that is, into some sort of walled enclosure, and that there they saw an angel sitting upon the stone which was rolled back from the monument, as Matthew says; and that this is Mark's expression---'sitting on the right side'; afterwards when they scanned the spot where the Lord's body had lain, they beheld two angels, who were at first seated, as John says, and who afterwards rose so as to be seen standing, as Luke relates."

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod argumenta quae christus induxit, non sufficienter manifestaverunt veritatem resurrectionis eius. Nihil enim ostendit christus discipulis post resurrectionem quod etiam Angeli, hominibus apparentes, vel non ostenderint, vel non ostendere potuerint. Nam Angeli frequenter in humana effigie se hominibus ostenderunt, et cum eis loquebantur et conversabantur et comedebant, ac si essent homines veri, sicut patet Gen. XVIII, de Angelis quos Abraham suscepit hospitio; et in libro tobiae, de Angelo qui eum duxit et reduxit. Et tamen Angeli non habent vera corpora naturaliter sibi unita, quod requiritur ad resurrectionem. Non ergo signa quae christus discipulis exhibuit, fuerunt sufficientia ad resurrectionem eius manifestandam.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, christus resurrexit resurrectione gloriosa, idest, habens simul humanam naturam cum gloria. Sed quaedam christus ostendit discipulis quae videntur esse contraria naturae humanae, sicut quod ab oculis eorum evanuit, et quod ad eos ianuis clausis intravit, quaedam autem videntur fuisse contraria gloriae, puta quod manducavit et bibit, quod etiam habuit vulnerum cicatrices. Ergo videtur quod illa argumenta non fuerunt sufficientia, neque convenientia, ad fidem resurrectionis ostendendam.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, corpus christi non erat tale post resurrectionem ut tangi deberet ab homine mortali, unde ipse dixit Magdalenae, Ioan. XX, noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad patrem meum.

Non ergo fuit conveniens quod, ad manifestandam veritatem suae resurrectionis, seipsum discipulis palpabile exhibuerit.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, inter dotes glorificati corporis praecipua videtur esse claritas. Quam tamen in resurrectione nullo argumento ostendit. Ergo videtur quod insufficientia fuerint illa argumenta ad manifestandam qualitatem resurrectionis christi.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod christus, qui est dei sapientia, suaviter et convenienter disponit omnia, ut dicitur Sap. VIII.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod christus resurrectionem suam dupliciter manifestavit, scilicet testimonio; et argumento seu signo. Et utraque manifestatio in suo genere fuit sufficiens. Est enim usus duplici testimonio ad manifestandam suam resurrectionem discipulis, quorum neutrum potest refelli. Quorum primum est testimonium Angelorum, qui mulieribus resurrectionem annuntiaverunt, ut patet per omnes evangelistas. Aliud autem est testimonium Scripturarum, quas ipse proposuit ad ostensionem suae resurrectionis, ut dicitur Luc. Ult..

Argumenta etiam fuerunt sufficientia ad ostendendam veram resurrectionem, et etiam gloriosam. Quod autem fuerit vera resurrectio, ostendit uno modo ex parte corporis. Circa quod tria ostendit. Primo quidem, quod esset corpus verum et solidum, non corpus phantasticum, vel rarum, sicut est aer. Et hoc ostendit per hoc quod corpus suum palpabile praebuit.

Unde ipse dicit, Luc. Ult., palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere.

Secundo, ostendit quod esset corpus humanum, ostendendo eis veram effigiem, quam oculis intuerentur. Tertio, ostendit eis quod esset idem numero corpus quod prius habuerat, ostendendo eis vulnerum cicatrices.

Unde legitur Luc. Ult., dixit eis, videte manus meas et pedes meos, quia ego ipse sum.

Alio modo ostendit eis veritatem suae resurrectionis ex parte animae iterato corpori unitae. Et hoc ostendit per opera triplicis vitae. Primo quidem, per opus vitae nutritivae, in hoc quod cum discipulis manducavit et bibit, ut legitur Luc. Ult..

Secundo, per opera vitae sensitivae, in hoc quod discipulis ad interrogata respondebat, et praesentes salutabat, in quo ostendebat se et videre et audire. Tertio, per opera vitae intellectivae, in hoc quod cum eo loquebantur, et de Scripturis disserebant. Et ne quid deesset ad perfectionem manifestationis, ostendit etiam se habere divinam naturam, per miraculum quod fecit in piscibus capiendis; et ulterius per hoc quod, eis videntibus, ascendit in caelum; quia, ut dicitur Ioan. III, nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis, qui est in caelo.

Gloriam etiam suae resurrectionis ostendit discipulis, per hoc quod ad eos ianuis clausis intravit, secundum quod Gregorius dicit, in homilia, palpandam carnem dominus praebuit, quam clausis ianuis introduxit, ut esse post resurrectionem ostenderet corpus suum et eiusdem naturae, et alterius gloriae.

Similiter etiam ad proprietatem gloriae pertinebat quod subito ab oculis discipulorum evanuit, ut dicitur Lucae ultimo, quia per hoc ostendebatur quod in potestate eius erat videri et non videri quod pertinet ad conditionem corporis gloriosi, ut supra dictum est.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod singula argumentorum non sufficerent ad manifestandam christi resurrectionem, omnia tamen simul accepta perfecte christi resurrectionem manifestant; maxime propter Scripturae testimonium, et Angelorum dicta, et ipsius christi assertionem miraculis confirmatam. Angeli autem apparentes non asserebant se homines esse, sicut asseruit christus vere se hominem esse. Et tamen aliter christus manducavit, et aliter Angeli. Nam quia corpora ab Angelis assumpta non erant corpora viva vel animata, non erat vera comestio, licet esset vera cibi contritio et traiectio in interiorem partem corporis assumpti, unde et Angelus dixit, tobiae XII, cum essem vobiscum, videbar quidem manducare et bibere vobiscum, sed ego cibo invisibili utor.

Sed quia corpus christi vere fuit animatum, vera fuit eius comestio.

Ut enim Augustinus dicit, XIII de CIV. Dei, non potestas, sed egestas edendi corporibus resurgentium aufertur.

Unde, sicut beda dicit, christus manducavit potestate, non egestate.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, argumenta quaedam inducebantur a christo ad probandum veritatem humanae naturae; quaedam vero ad probandum gloriam resurgentis. Conditio autem naturae humanae, secundum quod in se consideratur, quantum scilicet ad statum praesentem, contrariatur conditioni gloriae, secundum illud I Cor. XV, seminatur in infirmitate, et surget in virtute.

Et ideo ea quae inducuntur ad ostendendam conditionem gloriae, videntur habere contrarietatem ad naturam, non simpliciter, sed secundum statum praesentem; et e converso.

Unde Gregorius dicit, in homilia, quod duo mira, et iuxta humanam rationem sibi valde contraria, dominus ostendit, dum post resurrectionem corpus suum et incorruptibile, et tamen palpabile demonstravit.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod hoc dominus dixit, noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad patrem meum, ut in illa femina figuraretur ecclesia de gentibus, quae in christum non credidit nisi cum ascendisset ad patrem. Aut sic in se credi voluit iesus, hoc est, sic se spiritualiter tangi, quod ipse et pater unum sunt. Eius quippe intimis sensibus quodammodo ascendit ad patrem, qui sic in eo profecerit ut patri agnoscat aequalem. Haec autem carnaliter adhuc in eum credebat, quem sicut hominem flebat.

Quod autem maria alibi legitur christum tetigisse, quando simul cum aliis mulieribus accessit et tenuit pedes, quaestionem non facit, ut severianus dicit.

Siquidem illud de figura est, hoc de sexu, illud de divina gratia, hoc de humana natura.

Vel, sicut chrysostomus dicit, volebat haec mulier adhuc cum christo conversari sicut et ante passionem. Prae gaudio nihil magnum cogitabat, quamvis caro christi multo melior fuerit facta resurgendo.

Et ideo dixit, nondum ascendi ad patrem meum, quasi dicat, non aestimes me iam terrenam vitam agere. Quod enim in terris me vides, hoc est quia nondum ascendi ad patrem meum, sed in promptu est quod ascendam.

Unde subdit, ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, ad Orosium, clarificata carne dominus resurrexit, sed noluit in ea clarificatione discipulis suis apparere, quia non possent oculis talem claritatem perspicere. Si enim, antequam moreretur pro nobis et resurgeret, quando transfiguratus est in monte, discipuli sui eum videre non potuerunt; quanto magis, clarificata carne domini, eum videre non potuerunt.

Est etiam considerandum quod post resurrectionem dominus hoc praecipue volebat ostendere, quod idem ipse esset qui mortuus fuerat. Quod multum poterat impedire si eis sui corporis claritatem ostenderet. Nam immutatio quae fit secundum aspectum, maxime ostendit diversitatem eius quod videtur, quia sensibilia communia, inter quae est unum et multa, vel idem et diversum, maxime diiudicat visus. Sed ante passionem, ne infirmitatem passionis eius discipuli despicerent, maxime intendebat christus eis gloriam maiestatis suae ostendere, quam maxime demonstrat claritas corporis. Et ideo, ante passionem, gloriam suam praemonstravit discipulis per claritatem, post resurrectionem autem, per alia indicia.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu evang., possumus intelligere unum Angelum visum a mulieribus, et secundum matthaeum et secundum marcum, ut eas ingressas in monumentum accipiamus, in aliquod scilicet spatium quod erat aliqua maceria communitum, atque ibi vidisse Angelum sedentem supra lapidem revolutum a monumento, sicut dicit matthaeus; ut hoc sit sedentem a dextris, quod dicit marcus. Deinde, dum introspicerent locum in quo iacebat corpus domini, visos ab eis duos Angelos, primo quidem sedentes, ut dicit ioannes; et post eis assurrexisse, ut stantes viderentur, ut dicit Lucas.