|
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should have risen
again on the third day. For the members ought to be in conformity with
their head. But we who are His members do not rise from death on the
third day, since our rising is put off until the end of the world.
Therefore, it seems that Christ, who is our head, should not have
risen on the third day, but that His Resurrection ought to have been
deferred until the end of the world.
Objection 2: Further, Peter said (Acts 2:24) that "it was
impossible for Christ to be held fast by hell" and death. Therefore
it seems that Christ's rising ought not to have been deferred until
the third day, but that He ought to have risen at once on the same
day; especially since the gloss quoted above (Article 1) says that
"there is no profit in the shedding of Christ's blood, if He did
not rise at once."
Objection 3: The day seems to start with the rising of the sun, the
presence of which causes the day. But Christ rose before sunrise:
for it is related (Jn. 20:1) that "Mary Magdalen cometh
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre": but Christ was
already risen, for it goes on to say: "And she saw the stone taken
away from the sepulchre." Therefore Christ did not rise on the third
day.
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 20:19): "They shall
deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and
crucified, and the third day He shall rise again."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1) Christ's
Resurrection was necessary for the instruction of our faith. But our
faith regards Christ's Godhead and humanity, for it is not enough to
believe the one without the other, as is evident from what has been
said (Question 36, Article 4; cf. SS, Question 2,
Articles 7,8). Consequently, in order that our faith in the
truth of His Godhead might be confirmed it was necessary that He
should rise speedily, and that His Resurrection should not be
deferred until the end of the world. But to confirm our faith
regarding the truth of His humanity and death, it was needful that
there should be some interval between His death and rising. For if
He had risen directly after death, it might seem that His death was
not genuine and consequently neither would His Resurrection be true.
But to establish the truth of Christ's death, it was enough for His
rising to be deferred until the third day, for within that time some
signs of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is
alive.
Furthermore, by His rising on the third day, the perfection of the
number "three" is commended, which is "the number of everything,"
as having "beginning, middle, and end," as is said in De Coelo
i. Again in the mystical sense we are taught that Christ by "His
one death" (i.e. of the body) which was light, by reason of His
righteousness, "destroyed our two deaths" (i.e. of soul and
body), which are as darkness on account of sin; consequently, He
remained in death for one day and two nights, as Augustine observes
(De Trin. iv).
And thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the
Resurrection: for the first was before the Law; the second under the
Law; and the third under grace. Moreover the third state of the
saints began with the Resurrection of Christ: for, the first was
under figures of the Law; the second under the truth of faith; while
the third will be in the eternity of glory, which Christ inaugurated
by rising again.
Reply to Objection 1: The head and members are likened in nature,
but not in power; because the power of the head is more excellent than
that of the members. Accordingly, to show forth the excellence of
Christ's power, it was fitting that He should rise on the third
day, while the resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the
world.
Reply to Objection 2: Detention implies a certain compulsion. But
Christ was not held fast by any necessity of death, but was "free
among the dead": and therefore He abode a while in death, not as one
held fast, but of His own will, just so long as He deemed necessary
for the instruction of our faith. And a task is said to be done "at
once" which is performed within a short space of time.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question 51, Article
4, ad 1,2), Christ rose early when the day was beginning to
dawn, to denote that by His Resurrection He brought us to the light
of glory; just as He died when the day was drawing to its close, and
nearing to darkness, in order to signify that by His death He would
destroy the darkness of sin and its punishment. Nevertheless He is
said to have risen on the third day, taking day as a natural day which
contains twenty-four hours. And as Augustine says (De Trin.
iv): "The night until the dawn, when the Lord's Resurrection was
proclaimed, belongs to the third day. Because God, who made the
light to shine forth from darkness, in order that by the grace of the
New Testament and partaking of Christ's rising we might hear
this---'once ye were darkness, but now light in the
Lord'---insinuates in a measure to us that day draws its origin
from night: for, as the first days are computed from light to darkness
on account of man's coming fall, so these days are reckoned from
darkness to light owing to man's restoration." And so it is evident
that even if He had risen at midnight, He could be said to have risen
on the third day, taking it as a natural day. But now that He rose
early, it can be affirmed that He rose on the third day, even taking
the artificial day which is caused by the sun's presence, because the
sun had already begun to brighten the sky. Hence it is written (Mk.
16:2) that "the women come to the sepulchre, the sun being now
risen"; which is not contrary to John's statement "when it was yet
dark," as Augustine says (De Cons. Evang. iii), "because,
as the day advances the more the light rises, the more are the
remaining shadows dispelled." But when Mark says "'the sun being
now risen,' it is not to be taken as if the sun were already apparent
over the horizon, but as coming presently into those parts."
|
|