Summa III q.55 a.5-6 and q.56 a.1: The Signs That Prove the Resurrection, and Christ's Resurrection as the Cause of Ours

Orientation #

He picks up in mid-question, at the fifth article on the manifestation of the resurrection, and runs through the sixth and into a new question on the causality of the resurrection, stopping mid-flow (“Okay, gotta stop”). He notes that the previous article treated what caused the resurrection, whereas the new question asks what the resurrection is a cause of. The previous class worked through the first four articles of q. 55, pausing before the articles on Christ’s use of arguments and proofs.

The class, in order #

1. Objections against proving the resurrection by arguments (“Take away arguments where faith is sought”) #

• Ambrose: take away arguments where faith is sought — and faith is what is sought about the resurrection. He flags this and the next as “famous” quotes always found in objections, e.g. when Thomas asks whether theology proceeds argumentatively.
• Gregory: faith has no merit where human reason supplies experience; Christ would not take away faith’s merit.
• Christ came that men might have life more abundantly (John 10); but “blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (John 20) makes such showings an impediment to beatitude.
• Sed contra: Acts 1:3, Christ appeared through forty days in multis argumentis.

2. Two senses of “argument” (“argument is said in two ways”) #

• (a) a reason producing belief about a doubtful thing; (b) a sensible sign brought in to make known a truth — Aristotle sometimes uses “argument” this way [he wonders whether the reference is to the Prior Analytics].
• In sense (a) Christ does not prove his resurrection: the proof would start from principles either unknown to the disciples (then nothing is made known, since from the unknown nothing is known) or known, and so not transcending human reason, hence not efficacious for faith which exceeds reason — “principles must be taken from the same genus” (Posterior Analytics I).
• He does prove it from the authority of Scripture, the foundation of faith (Luke 24: all things written in the law, psalms and prophets about me).
• In sense (b) he declares it by most evident signs. The Greek behind in multis argumentis is tekmērion, an evident sign proving something — a word found in Aristotle for the strong sign.
• Examples: Augustine’s definition of sign — what strikes the senses and brings to mind something other than itself; Aristotle’s example of the strong sign — the woman with milk in her breasts as sign she has borne a child.

3. Why he showed the signs (“stulti and slow in heart to believing”) #

• First, their hearts were not disposed to accept faith easily: Luke 24 “O stupid and slow of heart”; Mark 16, he upbraided their incredulity and hardness of heart.
• Second, so their testimony would be more efficacious: 1 John 1, what we have seen and heard and our hands have touched, this we testify.
• Aside on love of God from Thomas on the Sentences: love of God can grow without limit, but can never equal the love of one who sees God face to face — hence “he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew), and it is stupid to think you will reach the love the Blessed Virgin or the apostles have; which does not mean you cannot grow more and more.

4. Replies on argument and merit (“one thing he saw and another he believed”) #

• To Ambrose: he speaks of arguments proceeding by human reason, invalid for matters of faith — we do not go to the philosopher to show Christ rose.
• To Gregory: merit of faith is believing, on God’s command, what one does not see; only a reason that makes one see what is proposed for belief excludes merit — a demonstrative reason, like a geometry theorem. Christ gave no such.
• To the third: faith’s merit is wholly excluded only if a man will believe nothing but what he sees. Thomas the apostle: “because you have seen me, you have believed” — he saw the wounds and believed he was God; one thing seen, another believed. Yet faith not needing such aids is more perfect: “unless you see signs and wonders you do not believe.” The signs serve both the apostles’ weak faith and our credibility — hence Thomas the apostle is often said to be important for us.

5. Article 6: are the signs sufficient? (“the angels did not have true bodies”) #

Objections:

1. Angels appearing in human effigy spoke, conversed and ate (Genesis 18 with Abraham; Tobit) without having true bodies naturally united to them. He remarks this sounds like an objection from a modern philosopher.
2. Some things shown seem contrary to human nature (vanishing from their eyes, entering with doors closed), others contrary to glory (eating, drinking, the scars).
3. “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended” — so showing himself touchable was unfitting.
4. Clarity, the chief gift of the glorified body, was shown by no sign. Aside: Moses had to cover his face, it was too bright — and his joke about telling Rosie to cover up the ring he had given her, a nice way of complimenting its size.

• A fifth objection is missing from his edition (the ad quintum is there without it); he notes another book has it from more recent Vatican codices and reads it later.
• Sed contra: Christ, the wisdom of God, disposes all things sweetly and suitably (Wisdom 8).

6. The corpus: testimony and signs (“both making known in its own kind was sufficient”) #

• Two testimonies, irrefutable: of the angels who announced the resurrection to the women (all the evangelists), and of the Scriptures, which Christ himself proposed (Luke 24 — the Emmaus discourse).
• Signs of a true resurrection, on the side of the body, three: it was a true and solid body, not fantastic or rare as air — shown by being touchable (Luke 24, “touch and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones”); it was a human body — shown by his true features seen with their eyes; it was the same body in number — shown by the scars, “see my hands and my feet”, ego sum.
• On the side of the soul reunited: works of the three lives — nutritive (he ate and drank), sensitive (he answered what was asked and saluted them, showing he saw, heard, sensed), intellectual (he spoke and discoursed on the Scriptures).
• And lest nothing be lacking, he showed a divine nature by the miracle of the fish caught, and by ascending as they watched (John 3, no one ascends but he who descended).
• Glory shown by entering with doors closed; Gregory: he let them handle the flesh he brought in through closed doors, to show the body of the same nature but another glory.

7. Replies of article 6 (“not each sign, but all taken together”) #

• To 1: no single sign suffices; all together perfectly manifest it, most of all the testimony of Scripture, the sayings of the angels, and Christ’s own assertion confirmed by miracles. The angels never asserted themselves to be men; Christ truly asserted himself man. And the eating differed: the angels’ assumed bodies were not ensouled, so there was no true eating — a true cutting up and throwing of food into the body’s interior only (Tobit 12: “I seemed to eat and drink, but I use an invisible food”). Christ’s body was ensouled, so the eating was true. Augustine (City of God XIII): not the power but the need of eating is taken from glorified bodies — so we will eat in the next world, without needing to; Bede: Christ ate by power, not by need.
• To 2: some signs prove the truth of his human nature, others the glory of the one rising; the condition of human nature in the present state is contrary to the condition of glory — “it is sown in infirmity, it rises in power” (1 Corinthians). So the contrariety is not to nature simply but to its present state, and conversely. Gregory: two marvels most contrary to human reason — a body incorruptible and yet touchable.
• To 3 (Noli me tangere): Augustine — in that woman is figured the Church of the Gentiles, which would not believe till he had ascended; he wished to be believed in, i.e. spiritually touched, as one with the Father; he wanted her to rise to his divinity. That Mary elsewhere held his feet makes no difficulty: Severianus — that belongs to the figure, this to [the sex / human nature]; that to divine grace, this to human nature. Or Augustine: she wanted to converse with him as before the Passion, though his flesh was much better by rising; “do not estimate me again to [mortal] life” — I am seen on earth because I have not yet ascended, but shortly I shall.
• To 4: Augustine to Orosius — he rose with clarified flesh but did not wish to appear so, since their eyes could not bear it; if at the Transfiguration before his death they could not look, much less after. Further, he especially wished to show it was the same one who had died, which the clarity would have impeded, since change in aspect most shows diversity in the thing seen — sight most of all judges the common sensibles, among which are the one and the many, the same and the other. Before the Passion, lest they despise the infirmity of his suffering, he showed the glory of his majesty through clarity; after the resurrection, through other signs.
• The fifth objection, read from the other edition: the angel-witnesses disagree — Matthew has the angel sitting on the rolled-back stone, Mark after the women entered; Matthew and Mark one angel, John two sitting, Luke two standing. Reply (Augustine, On the Agreement of the Gospels): one angel seen outside on the stone, sitting on the right as they entered (Mark), then on looking into the place where the body lay, two angels, first sitting (John), then risen and standing (Luke); there was time and space for this, and “tomb” can mean the surrounding area. His homely case: someone says I was sitting, another that I was standing — great contradiction!

8. New question: is Christ’s resurrection the cause of ours? (“what it is a cause of”) #

• The question has two articles: whether his resurrection causes our resurrection, and whether it causes our justification.
• Objections: (1) a sufficient cause posited, the effect follows — so all the dead should have risen at once. (2) The cause of resurrection is divine justice, that bodies be rewarded or punished with their souls (Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, last chapter; Damascene IV); that justice would be fulfilled even had Christ not risen. (3) It would have to be exemplar, efficient or meritorious cause — but not exemplar, since God who raises the dead (John 5) needs no exemplar outside himself; not efficient, since an efficient cause acts by contact, and there is no bodily contact given distance of time and place, nor spiritual contact by faith and charity, since the faithless and sinners also rise; not meritorious, since the risen Christ is no longer a viator and so not in the state of meriting. (4) Death being privation of life, to destroy death is to restore life; Christ destroyed our death by dying, so his death, not his resurrection, is the cause.
• Sed contra: 1 Corinthians 15 with the gloss — an efficient cause of our resurrection.

9. The corpus: the first in a genus is cause of the rest (“as is said in the second book of the metaphysics”) #

1. What is first (most perfect) in a genus is cause of all that come after in it (Metaphysics II).
2. Christ’s resurrection is first in the genus of resurrection — first in time to immortal resurrection, and most perfect.
3. Therefore it is the cause of ours. “Christ rose as the primitiae, the first-fruits, of those sleeping; through man came death, and through man the resurrection of the dead.”

• Why reasonably: the beginning of human life is the Word of God (“with you is the fountain of life”, Psalm 35; John 5, as the Father vivifies, so the Son). And in the divinely instituted natural order each cause works first on what is nearest and through that on the remote — fire heats the near air and through it distant bodies; God enlightens the substances nearest him and through them the more remote (Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy 13). So the Word first gives immortal life to the body personally united to him, and through that works the resurrection of the rest.

10. Replies: instrument, efficient cause, exemplar (“if I decide to use this knife”) #

• To 1: it causes through the power of the united Word, which works according to will; so the effect need not follow at once — we must first be conformed to Christ suffering and dying in this mortal life, uniting our own death and suffering to his, before partaking of the likeness of his resurrection.
• To 2: divine justice is the first cause, Christ’s resurrection the second — the distinction of principal and instrumental cause he says he was just reading in Metaphysics V. Though the principal agent’s power is not tied to this instrument, from working through it the instrument is a cause of the effect. God could have freed us otherwise; having decreed this way, the resurrection is the cause. His example: if I decide to use this knife to kill you, the knife is the instrumental cause of your death — not necessarily, but because I chose this weapon. “My ways are not your ways” — you can see the suitability of the choice.
• To 3: not properly a meritorious cause (his death is meritorious); it is efficient, insofar as the humanity by which he rose is a tool of his divinity and acts in its power, so that as his other deeds and sufferings are saving, so his resurrection effects ours by divine power, which is present to all places and times — such virtual contact suffices for efficient causality. And since the primordial cause is divine justice, from which he has power to judge as Son of Man, this efficiency extends to the bad as well as the good, who are subject to his judgment. It is also exemplar: as first in time by the personal union, so first in dignity and perfection — and the most perfect is always the exemplar the less perfect imitate. [He notes “first” is defined by “before”, the fourth sense of “before” in the Categories.] The exemplarity is needed not on the side of the one raising, who needs no exemplar, but on the side of those raised, who must be conformed (Philippians 3, configured to the body of his clarity). Hence efficiency extends to good and bad, exemplarity properly only to the good, conformed to his sonship (Romans 8:29).
• To 4: by reason of efficient causality, both his death and his resurrection destroy death and repair life; by reason of exemplarity, his death (by which he receded from mortal life) causes the destruction of our death, his resurrection (by which he began immortal life) the reparation of our life. [The clause on the passion as meritorious cause he breaks off.]
• Closing parallel: in creation, God is efficient cause (he makes us), exemplar (image and likeness), and end — “two and a half of the four senses Aristotle distinguishes”, but not the intrinsic form of things.

His words #

• in multis argumentis — Acts 1:3, “by many arguments”, i.e. evident signs.
• tekmērion — the strong or evident sign proving something; the Greek behind argumentum.
• signum evidens — his Latin gloss of tekmērion.
• stulti — “stupid”, Luke 24, of the disciples slow of heart.
• ego sum — “this is me”, what the scars showed.
• primitiae — first-fruits, 1 Corinthians 15.
• viator — one “on the way”, i.e. in the state of being able to merit.
• causa exemplaris / exemplaritas — exemplar cause, the model the less perfect imitate; tied to formal cause but not the intrinsic form.
• principal cause and quasi instrumentalis — chief and instrumental (primary and secondary) cause.
• Noli me tangere — “Do not touch me.”

Texts #

Read in class

• Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 55, a. 5 (objections, sed contra, corpus, replies)
• Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 55, a. 6 (including the fifth objection supplied from another edition)
• Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 56, a. 1

Mentioned

• Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I (principles from the same genus); Prior Analytics (uncertain, on “argument”); Metaphysics II (the first in a genus); Metaphysics V (principal and instrumental cause); Categories (the fourth sense of “before”)
• Scripture: Genesis 18; Tobit 12; Psalm 35; Matthew (on John the Baptist); Mark 16; Luke 24; John 3, 5, 10, 20; Acts 1:3; Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15; Philippians 3; Wisdom 8; 1 John 1
• Ambrose; Gregory (homilies); Augustine, City of God XIII, On John, On the Agreement of the Gospels, to Orosius, and his definition of sign; Bede; Severianus; Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (last ch.), Celestial Hierarchy 13; Damascene IV; Thomas, commentary on the Sentences

His questions #

• Does Christ declare his resurrection by arguments? Not by arguments from human reason, but by Scripture’s authority and by evident signs.
• Why does “argument” in Acts 1:3 not mean demonstration? Because the Greek is tekmērion, an evident sign.
• Why did he give the disciples signs at all? Because their hearts were slow to believe, and to make their testimony more efficacious for us.
• Does seeing a sign destroy the merit of faith? No — only a reason that makes one see what is to be believed; Thomas saw the wounds and believed he was God.
• Can the angels with unreal bodies do what Christ did? No: no single sign suffices, but all together; the angels never claimed to be men, and their eating was not true eating.
• Why was the clarity of the risen body not shown? Their eyes could not bear it, and it would have obscured that it was the same one who had died.
• Do the evangelists contradict each other about the angels? No — one angel outside, two within; sitting then standing; there was time and space for it.
• Is Christ’s resurrection the cause of ours, and what kind of cause? Yes: efficient (instrumentally, under divine justice as primary cause) and exemplar, but not meritorious.
• Why did not all the dead rise at once? Because it works through the will of the Word: we must first be conformed to his suffering and death.