Posted on 04/14/2020 9:02:35 AM PDT by Salvation
After Christ rose from the dead, He appeared to His disciples at certain places and times, but did not seem to stay with them continuously. On the first Easter Sunday, He appeared six times in rather rapid succession: first to Mary Magdalene, then to the women at the tomb, third as the women left the tomb, fourth to Peter, fifth to the two disciples going to Emmaus, and sixth to the ten Apostles in Jerusalem (when Thomas was not present).
In His public ministry, Jesus seemed to be with His disciples nearly all the time. However, after His Resurrection he would appear, converse, and teach, but then be absent from them bodily. For example, John 20:26 says that “after eight days” Christ appeared to the disciples, suggesting that He was not otherwise present to them during that period.
While it is true that we do not have an exact calendar of His appearances and not every appearance is necessary recorded, it seems apparent that the Lord was not constantly with the disciples during the forty days prior to His ascension.
Why is this?
St. Thomas Aquinas reflected on this question and offers two basic reasons. In so doing he does not propose an absolute explanation, but rather demonstrates why it was fitting that Christ was not with them continuously during the forty days prior to the ascension. St. Thomas writes,
Concerning the Resurrection two things had to be manifested to the disciples, namely, the truth of the Resurrection, and the glory of Him who rose.
Now in order to manifest the truth of the Resurrection, it sufficed for Him to appear several times before them, to speak familiarly to them, to eat and drink, and let them touch Him. But in order to manifest the glory of the risen Christ, He was not desirous of living with them constantly as He had done before, lest it might seem that He rose unto the same life as before … [For as Bede says] “He had then risen in the same flesh, but was not in the same state of mortality as they.”
That Christ did not stay continually with the disciples was not because He deemed it more expedient to be elsewhere: but because He judged it to be more suitable for the apostles’ instruction that He should not abide continually with them, for the reason given above.
He appeared oftener on the first day, because the disciples were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in His Resurrection from the very out set: but after they had once accepted it, they had no further need of being instructed by so many apparitions (Summa Theologiae, Part III, Q. 55, Art. 3).
While St. Thomas observes that there may well be appearances that were not recorded, he is inclined to hold that there were not a lot more of them. He writes,
One reads in the Gospel that after the first day He appeared again only five times. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), after the first five apparitions “He came again a sixth time when Thomas saw Him; a seventh time was by the sea of Tiberias at the capture of the fishes; the eighth was on the mountain of Galilee, according to Matthew; the ninth occasion is expressed by Mark, ‘at length when they were at table,’ because no more were they going to eat with Him upon earth; the tenth was on the very day, when no longer upon the earth, but uplifted into the cloud, He was ascending into heaven. But, as John admits, not all things were written down. And He visited them frequently before He went up to heaven,” in order to comfort them. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:6-7) that “He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once … after that He was seen by James”; of which apparitions no mention is made in the Gospels (ibid).
St. Thomas strikes a balance between the Lord’s need to instruct them and summon them to faith in the resurrection, and the need for them to grasp His risen glory. Christ did not merely resume His former life. The disciples were not to cling to their former understandings of Him as Rabbi and teacher; now they were to grasp more fully that He is Lord.
Though Thomas does not mention it here, I would add another reason for the Lord’s action of not abiding with them continuously: It was fitting for Him to do this to accustom them to the fact that they would no longer see Him as they had with their physical eyes. Once He ascended, they would see Him mystically in the Sacraments and in His Body the Church. Thus, as the Lord broke the Bread and gave it them in Emmaus, they recognized Him the Eucharist (Luke 24). Thereupon He vanished from them. It was as if to say, “You will no longer go on seeing me in the same manner. Now you will experience me mystically and in the Sacraments.”
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Christ did stay with his disciples.
Just not merely the twelve Apostles.
Well, if after finishing your work on earth, your home and throne was in Heaven with your ever-loving Heavenly Father, would you hang around the earth all the time? I don’t think I would.
Thank you for this post. I was a lapsed Christian/Luthern for much of my adult life but have returned to believe Jesus Christ lived, died, returned and rose to join His Father in Heaven.
Welcome back!
Many years ago, 1980s, I was chatting with an Army buddy. He was into Indians and I mentioned that I lived in Indian-named towns in Pennsylvania. One of those was Tuscarora. His eyes lit up and then he pulled out an article from his wallet. It was a story about the Tuscarora tribe.
In the article, was a legend passed down about a great man coming to them and teaching about the Christ, his death, and the forgiveness of sins therefrom. I took it that this event took place during Christ’s resurrection before His assertion into heaven.
So, even though Christ did not stay with His loved ones and disciples perpetually, He was busy at other places on earth.
So many Protestants believe that the Bible, as written, was all there was. I guess they just ignore John's statement that "not all things were written down."
If one tells many Protestants about "Apostolic Tradition" they will ignore it and start quoting the ONLY thing they know...what is written in the Bible.
Jesus' Ministry was more than just what was written in the New Testament. But, it they were Catholic they would know that.
Google
Protestants believed [thanks to EXCOMMUNICATED CATHOLIC PRIEST FATHER MARTIN LUTHER, 16th century] in only accepting the Old Testament books that were in Hebrew that the JEWS accepted and excluded these:
1. Book of Esdras
2. Book of Tobit (the Vulgate, and Luther call it Tobias
3. Book of Judith.
4. Book of Wisdom.
5. Book of Ecclesiasticus
6. Book of Baruch
7. Book of Susanna
8. and 9. Books of 1st & 2nd Maccabees
NINE BOOKS OF THE WORD OF GOD excluded by Father Luther.
How did he dare deny the written words of His Father in Heaven?
One can only assume that EXCOMMUNICATED CATHOLIC PRIEST FATHER MARTIN LUTHER did not believe in the Word of God, as written by the Apostles.
He believed in the word of EXCOMMUNICATED CATHOLIC PRIEST FATHER MARTIN LUTHER.
I've always thought that Father Luther was, no doubt, a good and holy man, trying to do right. But he BROKE his priestly vow of OBEDIENCE. Not good.
An interesting thought. How do you figure this?
He had to appear to the Lamanites in North America, of course.
That was my thought as well. Some American tribes have similar legends regarding a heavenly visitation. It’s possible.
He was busy appearing to the lost tribes in america.
Were not the five hundred to whom he appeared disciples?
Did they not go forth and spread the message of Christ after Pentecost? Examination of the story of Pentecost leads me to the conclusion that Christ appeared to many of his people during this period.
Mary Magdalen
The three other women who saw the empty tomb
The two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
The key is, that the vast majority of what He was doing and saying in this period, was not recorded directly in the NT. He taught a lot during the 40-day period between His Resurrection and His Ascension, but we have no more than 3 or 4 sentences of it recorded.
That's why John says there was so much, the earth itself could not contain the books if it were recorded.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that people did not fail to transmit what they heard from Him, to others, both orally, and by their example--- practices which are to be followed and preserved.
Ok, I did laugh...
Any chance they were visited by a stray Christian like an Irish or Basque who fell off a fishing boat 7-900 years ago?
I’ve tried researching this article several time after the advent of the internet.
Yes (to answer your Q) anything is a maybe. But the way I remember the story, was that it happened many many years ago. Plus, IIRC, the great man that came to them was the Savior himself.
That’s why I always wanted to have a copy of the letter to delve deeper into it.
The guy I refer to was from Montana. And the Tuscarora were an east coast tribe. He carried it with him all the time, in his wallet, due to referencing Christ himself. I’ve never forgot this even though it’s 40-years ago.
So many Protestants believe that the Bible, as written, was all there was. I guess they just ignore John's statement that "not all things were written down."
Like the Mormon and other false religions the Bible is somehow insufficient though Scripture testifies otherwise.
Roman Catholics have taken this verse completely out of context and consider it a carte blanche card to adopt whatever false beliefs they want. But here's the question no Roman Catholic can answer....which of these ECFs, whose opinions contradict themselves, is correct?
*****
If one tells many Protestants about "Apostolic Tradition" they will ignore it and start quoting the ONLY thing they know...what is written in the Bible.
Yet when the early church was building the canon of Scripture none of the writings the Roman Catholic Church uses was included.
Nor at Trent when Rome dogmatically declared its canon did they include any of these non-biblical writings as canon.
Jesus' Ministry was more than just what was written in the New Testament. But, it they were Catholic they would know that.
What was determined to know about the life of Christ was contained in Scriptures recognized by the early church. If the person was a Christian, they'd know that.
*****
Protestants believed [thanks to EXCOMMUNICATED CATHOLIC PRIEST FATHER MARTIN LUTHER, 16th century] in only accepting the Old Testament books that were in Hebrew that the JEWS accepted and excluded these:
Rome continues to labor under the false assumption these books were accorded the same status as the canon. Jerome recognized these books were not equal to the canon when he was rendering the Vulgate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.