Tertia Pars
Lecture 124: Christ's Resurrection: Suitability, Timing, and Nature of the Risen Body

Transcript
================================================================================

But it was suitable for Christ to rise the third day. To the second one proceeds thus. It seems it was not suitable for Christ to rise the third day. For members ought to be conformed to the head. That we who are members of Christ do not rise from the dead, from death on the third day. But our resurrection is deferred until the end of the world. Therefore it seems that Christ who is our head ought not to, what? Well, rise the third day, but he ought to defer his resurrection into the world. It's not fair. Well, it's an equality of this man, right? It's a democratic way of doing it. Moreover, Acts 2, in Acts 2, the Apostles, Peter says, it was impossible for Christ to be detained, right? From what? By hell. By hell, yeah. And death. But so long as one is dead, he is detained or held back by death, right? Therefore, it seems that the resurrection of Christ ought not to be deferred all the way to the third day. But immediately, the same day, he ought to rise. Especially since the gloss induced above says, there would be no usefulness in the pouring out of the blood of Christ unless he, what? Wrote away. Wrote away. Notice these two errors, these two objections. They're, what? Pulled apart. Pulled apart, right? One is saying, he should have rose right away. This one here and the one, you know, he should not have rise until the end of the rest of us. So it's a custom of those earned to go to, what? Extremes, yeah. It's like a virtue there, huh? No. Virtue is in between two vices, one of which is an excess and one a defect, right? So courage is between cowardice and foolhardiness. Proper name for it in English. Foolhardiness. Yeah. Now the third objection is talking about, well, wasn't the night he rose rather than the third day. Moreover, the day seems to begin from the rise of the sun, which by its presence causes the day. But before the rise of the sun, Christ rose. For it says, in the morning of the Sabbath, Mary Magdalena, when it was still, what, dark, came to the monument. And then Christ had already rose, because it follows. And he saw the stone, she saw the stone, rolled away from the monument. Therefore, Christ did not, in fact, rise the third day. But against all this is what is said in Matthew 20. They handed him over to the Gentiles, huh? To be made fun of and to be flagellated, huh? And crucified. The third day he rose. That's pretty clear. Now he's going to expand upon something he said in the first article. I answer it should be said, but it has been said, the resurrection of Christ was necessary for the instruction of our faith. So he's calling one of the five reasons in the first one, but he's going to expand upon that reason. But our faith is about the divinity and humanity of Christ. And one does not suffice without the other to believe, right? As is what? Clear from the four things for Satan. And therefore, in order to confirm the faith of our divinity, our faith of his divinity, it's necessary that he, what? Right. Quickly. And his resurrection be not deferred till the end of the world, huh? Then I think it's like the rest of us, you know? But, in order that he might confirm the faith of the truth of his humanity and the truth of his, what? Death. It's necessary for there to be some delay between the death and the, what? Resurrection. For if immediately, after death, he rose, it would seem that his death was not a true death, right? And consequently, neither a true, what? Resurrection. But for the truth of the death of Christ manifesting it, it suffices that his resurrection be deferred until the third day. Because it does not happen that within this time, in a man who seems to be dead, when he lives, right, that there would appear somewhat signs of life. Okay, so that's a basic thing, huh? But through this, that the third day he rose, he commends a perfection of three, huh? Which is a number of everything as having a beginning, a middle, and an end, as Aristotle says in the first book on the universe, the Celo de Mundo. They show also, according to a mystery, that Christ, by his one death, which was light in account of justice, destroyed, right, are two deaths, right? The death of our body and the death of our soul, the body, which are dark on account of what? Sin. And therefore, one integral whole day, and two nights he remained in death, as Augustine says in the fourth book of Bop, Trinity. And then two other things he says, for this, or through this, it's also signified that through the resurrection of Christ, the third time begins. For the first was before the law, the second under the law, and the third under what? Grace. There begins also in the resurrection of Christ the third status of the saints, a third state, huh? For the first was under the figures of the law, the second under the truth of faith, and the third in the eternity of glory, which Christ, by rising, began. So, the injection was to the being three, to the rising from the death in the third day. Somebody wrote and asked, some promise of the prentections to try to figure out, well, Christ must have really died on Wednesday, so that he could be Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in the tomb, so the scriptures are all mixed up, and so forth, because that's the only way it could be three days in the tomb. It reminds me of the woman next door there. She'd be meaning about the brothers of Christ, you know, and she'd have, which I explained to her, you know, she's not a Catholic, but the brothers of Christ means. And the first objection was, well, what about the conformity of the members to the head, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the head and the members are conformed to nature, but not in power, huh? For more excellent is the power of the head than of the members. And therefore, to showing the excellence of the power of Christ, it was suitable that he rise the third day, but that the resurrection of the others be delayed until the end of the world, right? Makes a nice safe distance, huh? Between us and power. Now, what about this detention? What does second should be said that detention implies a certain force, huh? Christ, by no necessity of death, was held restricted, but he was free among the dead. Interesting expression. This refreshes to Psalm 87, my texture. Yeah? That's what he's hearing, too. Yeah. And therefore, sometime he remained in death, not as we were detained by death, but by his own will, right? Insofar as he judged us to be necessary for the instruction of our faith. So he had in mind the very reason that Thomas killed, for remaining there, right? Not that he was under any necessity of remaining dead for this period of time. But he had said at once to come about because it happened in a brief time, right? So the man and the woman said, we're going to get married right away. Does that mean right away? I mean, we have this way of speaking, you know, you have a daily life, huh? And they don't mean that there's no time at all, right? But it's a short time, right? I'm going right away. I haven't gone yet. Now to the third, it should be said, Christ rose around the what? Dawn. Dawn. The day already beginning to what? Brighten. Brighten event. To signifying that through his resurrection, he is leading us to the light of what? Glory, you know? Just as he died towards evening, huh? At Vesper, that's the word Vespers, huh? Already the day, tending into darkness, huh? To showing that through his death, he destroyed the darkness of guilt and punishment. And nevertheless, he is said to have risen on the third day, taking day for the natural day, right? Which contains a space of, what, 24 hours, huh? And just as Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity, for night, up until what? Dawn. Dawn, in which the resurrection of Christ is declared, pertains to the, what, third day that we might say from midnight, right? Because God, who said, from the darkness, light will shine, right? That through the grace of the New Testament and the participation in the resurrection of Christ, we will hear, you are sometime darkness, now ever light in the Lord, huh? Sons of light, huh? It insinuates for us in a certain way that from night, day takes its, what, beginning, huh? Just as the first day is an account of the future lapse of man from light into darkness, right, huh? So also in the contemplation of man, they are computed from darkness to light, huh? Interesting idea there. And thus it is clear that even if in the middle of night he arose, it could be said that he arose the third day, right? Understanding this about the natural day. Now, however, since in the dawn he arose, it can be said that he arose the third day, even taking the artificial day. It's interesting to use the term artificial day. It seems all for natural to take. Supposed to natural, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Which is causing the presence of the sun, right, huh? Because the soul began to enlighten the air, right? Whence Mark says, 16, that the woman came to the monument, the sun now risen, huh? Which is not contrary to what John said, that we're near yet with darkness, as Augustine says, in the book on the agreement of the Gospels. The day rising up, the rest, the remainder of darkness, was so much extended, right, the more the light arose. I suppose the contrast of the two, huh? But that Marcus says, the soul rising, not should be taken in the way that the sun is now seen upon the earth, but that it was coming there in the parts, it's approximate to this. So we've got time here for another article. So we've got time here for another article. So we've got time here for another article. So we've got time here for another article. So we've got time here for another article. For the Christ first rose, huh? Anybody else rise before Christ? There's a verse of some things in the Old Testament, huh? To the third one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ did not first rise, huh? For the Old Testament, through Elias and Aeneas, some are written to have been, what? Raised up. According to that of Hebrew 11, the woman received from the resurrection, they're dead. Likewise, Christ, before his passion, rose three, raised up three dead. So Augustine refers to those to the three stages of sin, right? Because the one is raised from the dead in your bedroom, right? That's when the sin is kind of inwardly, right? And the other one is raised from the dead when he's brought outside the wall because the sins are now gone out into the outward act. And then the one, what's his name? Lazarus is raised from the dead when he's... Dinky. Habitual, yeah, yeah, yeah. He's stuck in the habitual sin, you know. So there's hope for you, no matter which state of sin you're in, whether it's just 12 years or whether it's proceeded out to the exterior act and whether you're confirmed in your wickedness by repeated sins and you're a habitual sinner, you know, and so on. Probably interesting on John. Oh. Yeah, yeah. Thomas talks about it too, yeah. I see that. Probably in the commentator, yeah. Probably in the best in the first, yeah. He's in that of the contained in the end. Oh, yeah, that's right. Okay. But I mean, it goes back to that, one of the reasons given there, you know, informing the life of the faithful, you know. It's just as Christ rose from the dead, do no longer die, right? So we should rise from our sins through confession and so on and with the intention of not sinning anymore, right? Otherwise we should be resurrected, right? In front of your sins. You've got to go back and do them anymore. I was saying that she had always had this meditation and thought about the sinner. She always revered the sinner as Christ in the tomb was able to rise. She had a little meditation. Morver, Matthew 27, among other miracles which happened in the Passion of Christ, it is narrated that the monuments are opened and many bodgedly saints who slept, right, rose up, down peered in the city, right? Therefore, Christ is not the first of those rising. Morver, just as Christ, whose resurrection, is the cause of our resurrection, so through his grace is the cause of our grace. According to that of John 1, of his fullness we have all received. But others, before in time, had grace than Christ, just as all the fathers of the Old Testament. Therefore also before, they also therefore arrived at the resurrection of the body before what? Christ. But against all this is what is said in 1 Corinthians 15, 20. Christ rose from the dead. The first fruits, you might say, are those sleeping. Because before in time and dignity he rose. It's interesting to see it. In time, it's saying here the gloss. And I don't know who the gloss is, but he's in your linear one, the gloss. So my text says, yeah. I answer, Thomas says, that resurrection is a reparation, a repair, from death to life. But in two ways, someone is what? From death. In one way, only from death in act. That someone, what, begins to live in whatever way after he was, what? Dead, right? In another way, that someone is liberated not only from death, but also from necessity. And what is more, from the very possibility of what? Dying, right? And this is a true and perfect, what? Resurrection. Because so long as someone lives subject to the necessity of dying, in a way, death dominates him, right? According to that of Romans 8, 10. The body is dead in account of sin. That which, also, which is possible to be, in some ways said to be. That is, potentially. And thus, it is clear that that resurrection by which one is freed not only from actual death, only from actual death, is an imperfect, what? Resurrection. So apparently, Lazarus rose to die again, right? Presumably that's true of that little girl and that young man, I guess, the only son, was it, of the widow? Yeah. And the same with the, the true in the Old Testament. Yeah. Speaking, therefore, of perfect resurrection, huh? Christ is the first of those rising, huh? Because he, in rising, first arrived at a life penny to us, entirely or completely immortal, right? According to that of Romans chapter 6. Christ, rising from the dead, now no longer dies, right, huh? But the, but by an imperfect resurrection, some others arose before Christ in time, right? To what? Showing as a word in a certain sign is what? Resurrection is a kind of figures of him, right? Mm-hmm. And this is clearly the response to the first, what, objection? Because those who were raised up in the Old Testament and those who were raised up by Christ in this way returned to life that they would nevertheless again die, right? I've got to go through it twice. It's not fair. Now, what about those who rose with Christ, right? Well, about this, Thomas says, there's a two-fold opinion, huh? For some assert that they returned to life as were not again to die, huh? Because greater would be for them the torment if they were again to, what, die than if they had not, what, risen? Yeah. And according to this it should be understood as Erasmus says, as Jerome says on Matthew that they did not, what, rise before our Lord arose, right? Whence the evangelist says that going after the monuments after the resurrection, right? That means like in time, right? Mm-hmm. They came into the holy city and they appeared to, what, many, huh? But Augustine in the epistle to Avodium, huh? Remembering or reminding us of this opinion says, I know that to some it seems, right, that by the death of our Lord Christ, huh, such resurrection was already, what, offered to you to the just of the kind that is promised to us in the end, right, where we would rise and not, you know, die again, right, huh? Which, if not again, right, huh, the body's, what? Slepting. Yeah, they stepped. It must be seen in what way understood. Yeah, what way to be understood was saying that Christ is the primogenitus of mortis, the first born from the dead. If so many preceded him in that resurrection, right, that perfect resurrection, which, if it be answered that this was said by anticipation, that those monuments by that motion of the earth were opened is understood with what? With Christ. With Christ and in the cross. But the bodies did not what? Resurrect then, right? Yeah. But when he had before rose up, right? But still there Remains to be moved in what way Peter, not about David, but about Christ asserts that his foresaid flesh did not see corruption, to it, to this, that before it, and thus he did not, to it, the body of David, there was not. Because although before he, what, rose in his death, nor did his flesh see, what, corruption, but it's difficult to be seen that David was not in that resurrection of the just, if to them eternal things were given, right, whom Christ from the seed is commended. And it also endangers it, or pericry to bond. In that sentence. Yeah, that which is said about the, what, just of the old just, in the epistles of the Hebrews, right, that not without us are they, what? Not be perfected without us. Already, in that resurrection, they are constituted, which is promised to us to be perfected in the end. Whatever Augustine's saying, those words. Thus, therefore, Augustine would seem to think, right, that they rose again to, what, die, right, huh? To which also seems to retain what Jerome says upon Matthew, that just as Lazarus rose, so also many bodies of the saints rose, right, that they might, what, show the Lord rising. Although, this, in the sermon about the assumption is, what, left in some doubt, huh? But the reasons of Augustine seem to be much more efficacious, right? So, what is the reason of Augustine to say that they rose to die again? That seems to be, yeah. I thought that was interesting about David, because this is well after the resurrection, the Pentecost, and he says, he's trying to prove the resurrection, because David could have been speaking about himself, not seeing corruption, because his tomb is among us. Yeah. If he rose and disappeared, then he's, yeah, but he's not there anymore. Yeah, the paper they did about Harvey Oswald, you know, there, I guess there was this theory, you know, that he was not buried, you know, that he was not in the grave. So, a few years back, they dug up the thing, you know, and he was there, and, but then the, the, the wooden casket, I mean, it deteriorated a bit, so they, they put him in another one, right? Now they're going to auction off this, this thing, and it's just going to get a hundred thousand dollars, you know, for, you know, for, you know, it was, you know. A lot of people want to pay a hundred thousand, right? I don't know, we'll see what it goes for. I was wondering, maybe use it for satanic, or if you, you know, if you're looking for a job, if you're looking for a crappy old case. Yeah, yeah, well, where are you going to put the darn thing, if you had it anyway? I mean, if they gave it to you, I wouldn't want it, we'd want it. Put it in the garage, you know. Hey, I just want to see what you've done, you know, that's what's. Yeah, look at the garage, you know. It's like people, you know, you know, auctioning off, you know, Jackie Kennedy's, you know, mirror or something, you know. You know, they'll pay a huge sum to these things. That's just, I'm curious, you know, well, so who's auctioning it? That's true, too. Yeah, I don't know. Was it a family? I had to read the article too carefully. Is it a carman down the street? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Relics from the Holy Land. Michael Jackson's other glove. He actually lost it before his show, and that's how it started. He's sitting by a garbage can, and he's saying, look here, I got Michael Jackson's lovely book. I have a footnote here, it says, this sermon about the Assumption is not of Augustine, right? So, a little bit complicated here. Now, the third objection. To the third, it should be said, that just as those things which preceded the coming of Christ were preparatory for Christ, right? So, also, grace is a disposition for glory. And therefore, those things which pertain to glory, whether regarding the soul, as a perfect enjoyment of God, or as regards the body, as the glorious resurrection, first in time ought to be in Christ, just as in the author of grace. But grace comes, what, before in those things which are ordered to Christ, right? Yeah. So, he's saying that people could have grace before Christ had grace, because Christ is not yet incarnate, right? But Christ would come before in, what, glory, right? The glory of the soul and the glory of the body, right? The fourth I include for a team. To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that Christ was not the cause of his own resurrection, right? Because whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own resurrection. But Christ is raised up by another, for it is said in Acts chapter 2, whom God rose up, right? Raised up, dissolving the sorrows of hell, right? And in Romans 8, who rose, raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, you'll vilify also our mortal bodies. Therefore Christ was not the cause of his own resurrection. Use the word God there, but doesn't it speak of Father there in some of the texts too of Scripture? The Father who was raised up? Yeah, somebody said, well, if the Father raised him up, then he raised himself up, you know? That'd be strong, you know, because he is God. Moreover, no one is said to merit, or to, what? Ask from another, right? Something of which he himself is the cause, huh? But Christ, by his passion, merited resurrection, as Augustine says, huh? That the humility of his passion merited the glory of his, what? Resurrection. He also asked for the Father that he be, what? Resuscitated, right? According to that of the Psalm 40, huh? You, our Lord, have pity on me, and raise me up. Therefore, Christ was not the cause of his own, what? Resurrection, right? Moreover, Damascene proves in the fourth book that resurrection is not of the soul, but of the body, which is fallen to death, but the body cannot, what? Unite itself, cannot unite the soul to itself, huh? Which soul is more noble than it, huh? Therefore, that which resurrected in Christ cannot be the cause of its own, what? Resurrection, huh? But against all, this is what the Lord said in John chapter 10. No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down, and again I take it up. That's pretty clear. But there's nothing other to resurrect, then, to again take up the soul, right? Therefore, it seems that Christ, by his own power, resurrected, huh? Well, I answer, Thomas says, that through death, the divinity was not, the divine nature was not separated, either from the soul of Christ, nor from his, what? Flesh, right? So both his soul and his flesh, or body, remained united to his divine person, right? Therefore, the soul of Christ, of Christ's dead, right, huh? As well as his flesh, can be considered in two ways. In one way, by reason of the divinity, right? In another way, by reason of the created nature, right? According, therefore, to the power of the united divinity, right, huh? Both the body resumed the soul, right, which it had laid down, right? And the soul resumed the body, which it had dismissed. And this is what is said about Christ in 2 Corinthians chapter 13. That although he is crucified from our infirmity, nevertheless he lives from the power of God, huh? If, however, we consider the body and the soul of the dead Christ according to the power of the created nature, thus they were not able to, what? Be reunited to each other. It was necessary for Christ to be raised up by God, huh? Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the same is the divine power and operation of the Father and the Son. Whence these two things fall upon each other. That Christ was what? Raised by the divine power of the Father, and also by himself, the same power. Every time he's talking about the Holy Spirit, you know, proceeding from the power of the Father, but it's the same power in the Son, so he proceeds from the Son. The second should be said that Christ, in praying, asked for and merited his resurrection, insofar as he is a, what? Man, huh? So as man, he asked for and merited his resurrection. Not as God that he, what? Asked for his resurrection. And not as God that he, what? Merited his resurrection, huh? Can God merit anything? I don't think so, huh? He's got it in it. Yeah. So God does it merit our love? Well, that's another way to speak. To the theory it should be said that the body, according to its created nature, is not more powerful than the soul of Christ, right? It is, however, more powerful than it, according to the divine, what? Power, right? Which, again, united, according to the divine nature, right? Is more potent than the body, according to its, what? Created nature, the soul, I guess he said, you've heard it too, huh? And therefore, according to the divine power, the body and the soul mutually resumed each other, right? Not, however, according to the power of the created nature, huh? Just his case there, right? Mm-hmm. A little break here before we go on to the next. Let's do it. Then we're not to consider about the quality of Christ rising, right? And about this, four things are asked. First, whether after the resurrection, Christ had a true body. He had a spiritual body within me. Secondly, whether he rose with the, what, integrity of the body, right? All his parts. Third, whether his body was glorious. And four, about the wounds, right, appearing in his body. To first, therefore, one proceeds. It seems that Christ, after resurrection, did not have a true body. For a true body is not able to be with another body in the same place. But the body of Christ, after resurrection, was together with another body in the same place. For he came in to the disciples, the doors closed, right? Therefore, it seems that Christ, after the resurrection, did not have a true body. Moreover, a true body does not disappear from the sight of those looking upon it, unless perhaps it be corrupted. But the body of Christ vanished, right, from the eyes of the disciples looking upon him. This is the... Emmaus. Emmaus, yeah. Therefore, it seems that Christ, after the resurrection, did not have a true body. But, moreover, of any true body, there is a determined figure. But the body of Christ appeared to disciples in another, what? Likeness, right. Yeah, effigies. That's what we get to do with the bringing effigies, right? Copy in the likeness point. Yeah, as is clear in Mark 16. Therefore, it seems that Christ, after the resurrection, did not have a true human body. Against this is what is said in Luke 24, that Christ, appearing to the disciples, they were disturbed and frightened, and they thought they saw a spirit, right? As if he had not a true body, but a fantastical one. And, removing this, he afterwards joins, feel and see, right, that the spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me to have, huh? Therefore, he did not have a fantastical body, but a true one, huh? The answer, it should be said, that as Damascene says in the fourth book, that is said to rise up, that has fallen, right? But the body that Christ, that fell through death, right? In so far as it was what separated from the soul, which was its form of perfection. Whence is necessary, then or that there be a true resurrection of Christ, right? That the same body of Christ, again, united to the same soul. And because the truth of the nature of the body is from its form, it follows that the body of Christ, after the resurrection, was a, what, true body, and of the same nature with that that it was before. If the body was fantastic, it would not have been a true resurrection, but a, what, parent? So it sounds like heresy, I guess. So what about one body being where another body is, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that the body of Christ, after the resurrection, not from a miracle, but from the condition of its glory, as some say, entered the doors being closed to the disciples, huh? Existing at the same time, or together, with another body in the same place. But whether this is possible for a glorious body, from some property found in it, that together with another body in the same place it exists, will be, what, discussed later, when one treats about the resurrection. Now, however, as far as is sufficient for the thing proposed, it should be said that, not from the nature of the body, but rather from the power of the divinity united with it, that body to the disciples, although it was a true body, entered in, the door is being closed. First, once Augustine says in a certain sermon on the Paschal thing, and this one is not said to be, not his, that some thus dispute, huh? If the body, if it was a body, if it, if this rose from the sepulcher that hung upon the wood, right? And what way through the closed doors would it be able to come in, right? And he answers, if you grasp the way that it did, it is not a miracle. For where reason fails, there is the building up of faith, huh? And upon that of John, he says, the bodily... The pile. The pile, yeah. Where the divinity was, the closed doors did not, what, stand in the way. For the one, for he could, what, enter in to those... Not open, the door is not open. Yeah, who was born with the virginity of his mother, remaining invalid. And the same thing Gregory says in his hidden homily about the Paschal. I think there's a little bit of density or something. It's another text of Augustine, you know, that what is not great in mole, right? Is to be more, is to be better, huh? That's boldies, that's virtudies. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The second should be said, that it has been said, Christ rose to the immortal life of glory, right, huh? Now this is the disposition of a glorious body, that it be spiritual. That is subject to the spirit, huh? Not spiritual in the sense of nothing, a body, right? As the Apostle says, huh? But in order that a body be altogether subject to the spirit, it's required that every action of the body be subject to the will of the spirit, right? That however something be seen, right, comes about through the action of the visible upon the sight. As it's clear through the philosopher in the second book about the soul. And therefore, whoever has a glorified body, in his power you will have to be seen when he wants to, huh? So if you want to hide from me in the next world, you can. And when he does not wish, he is to not be seen, right? Now this Christ had, not only from the condition of the glorified body, but also from the virtue of his divinity, huh? Yeah, I think John Chrysostom points out several of those. Yeah. When he passed through the midst of the crowd, they want to throw him off the hill and pass through the midst. They get together in the Garden of Gethsemane. They didn't recognize him. He wanted them to know. You're not going to know anything unless I permit you. Yeah. To which it can come about that even bodies not glorious, right? are miraculously not seen, right? Seek it just as it was given miraculously to the blessed, what? Is that the apostle? It could be. That if he wished, he would be seen, but that he would not be seen if he did not wish, huh? I think it was Gerard in the tree. Didn't want to answer the phone. He was on a tree when someone came to a cell. I don't even know if it was a superior or something, but he named something this one. I'm supposed to come out of that full detail. He put on the ring. Yeah. Exactly. I don't know.