|
Objection 1: It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of
glory. For a gloss of Bede on Mt. 17:2, "He was transfigured
before them," says: "In His mortal body He shows forth, not the
state of immortality, but clarity like to that of future
immortality." But the clarity of glory is the clarity of
immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ showed to His
disciples was not the clarity of glory.
Objection 2: Further, on Lk. 9:27 "(That) shall not taste
death unless they see the kingdom of God," Bede's gloss says:
"That is, the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of
future beatitude." But the image of a thing is not the thing itself.
Therefore this was not the clarity of beatitude.
Objection 3: Further, the clarity of glory is only in a human
body. But this clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in
Christ's body, but also in His garments, and in "the bright
cloud" which "overshaded" the disciples. Therefore it seems that
this was not the clarity of glory.
On the contrary, Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured
before them" (Mt. 17:2): "He appeared to the Apostles such
as He will appear on the day of judgment." And on Mt. 16:28,
"Till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom," Chrysostom
says: "Wishing to show with what kind of glory He is afterwards to
come, so far as it was possible for them to learn it, He showed it to
them in their present life, that they might not grieve even over the
death of their Lord."
I answer that, The clarity which Christ assumed in His
transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as
to its mode of being. For the clarity of the glorified body is derived
from that of the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Diosc.
cxviii). And in like manner the clarity of Christ's body in His
transfiguration was derived from His God. head, as Damascene says
(Orat. de Transfig.) and from the glory of His soul. That the
glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment
of Christ's conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation,
that, as stated above (Question 14, Article 1, ad 2), He
might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This
did not, however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the
glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity,
in His transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For
the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a
permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not
miraculous in a glorified body. But in Christ's transfiguration
clarity overflowed from His Godhead and from His soul into His
body, not as an immanent quality affecting His very body, but rather
after the manner of a transient passion, as when the air is lit up by
the sun. Consequently the refulgence, which appeared in Christ's
body then, was miraculous: just as was the fact of His walking on the
waves of the sea. Hence Dionysius says (Ep. ad Cai. iv):
"Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is
shown in His supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable
waters bearing the weight of material and earthly feet."
Wherefore we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor [Innocent
III, De Myst. Miss. iv] said, that Christ assumed the gift
of clarity in the transfiguration, of agility in walking on the sea,
and of subtlety in coming forth from the Virgin's closed womb:
because the gifts are immanent qualities of a glorified body. On the
contrary, whatever pertained to the gifts, that He had miraculously.
The same is to be said, as to the soul, of the vision in which Paul
saw God in a rapture, as we have stated in the SS, Question
175, Article 3, ad 2.
Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted prove, not that the clarity
of Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a
glorified body, since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And
just as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul
should not overflow into the body so was it possible that by
dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to
that of impassibility.
Reply to Objection 2: This clarity is said to have been imaginary,
not as though it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it
was a kind of image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of
which the body will be glorious.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as the clarity which was in Christ's
body was a representation of His body's future clarity, so the
clarity which was in His garments signified the future clarity of the
saints, which will be surpassed by that of Christ, just as the
brightness of the snow is surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory
says (Moral. xxxii) that Christ's garments became resplendent,
"because in the height of heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to
Him in the refulgence of righteousness. For His garments signify the
righteous, because He will unite them to Himself," according to
Is. 49:18: "Thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an
ornament."
The bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the "power
of the Father," as Origen says (Tract. iii in Matth.), by
which in the glory to come the saints will be covered. Or, again, it
may be said fittingly that it signifies the clarity of the world
redeemed, which clarity will cover the saints as a tent. Hence when
Peter proposed to make tents, "a bright cloud overshaded" the
disciples.
|
|