Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 13

Having discussed the different charismatic graces and ministries that distinguish the members of the Church, the Apostle now addresses charity, which is inseparably connected with sanctifying grace. Because he had promised to show them a more excellent way, he demonstrates how charity outranks the other gifts—that is, the charismatic graces—in three ways. First, he shows its necessity, because without charity the other gifts are not enough. Second, he shows its usefulness, because through charity all evils are avoided and all good is performed (1 Corinthians 13:4–7). Third, he shows its permanence (1 Corinthians 13:8).

The Apostle seems to reduce all the charismatic gifts to three categories. First, he shows that the gift of tongues, which relates to speech, is of no value without charity (1 Corinthians 13:1). Second, he shows that gifts related to knowledge are of no value without charity (1 Corinthians 13:2). Third, he shows the same for gifts related to works (1 Corinthians 13:3).

The Corinthians had a great desire for the gift of tongues, as will be shown in chapter 14. Therefore, beginning with that gift, he says, in effect: I have promised to show you a more excellent way, and this is especially clear regarding the gift of tongues. For, if I speak in the tongues of men, that is, if I had the gift to speak in the languages of all people; and to emphasize the point he adds, and of angels, but have not charity, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. He uses an appropriate comparison. The soul lives through charity, and charity lives through God, who is the life of the soul, as it says in Deuteronomy 30:20: He is your life. For this reason, 1 John 3:14 says: We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love remains in death.

Therefore, he correctly compares speech without charity to the sound of a dead object, namely, a brass gong and a cymbal. Although they produce a clear sound, they are not living but dead. In the same way, the speech of a person without charity, no matter how erudite, is considered dead because it does not merit eternal life. There is a difference between a sounding brass gong and a clanging cymbal: because brass is flat, it produces a simple sound when struck; but a cymbal, being concave, multiplies the sound when struck once, which is what clanging is. Therefore, those who state the truth simply are compared to the brass, while those who expand upon the truth by adding many reasons, analogies, and connections are compared to the cymbal. Without charity, all of this is considered dead.

But we should consider what is meant by "the tongues of angels." Since the tongue is a physical organ, and the gift of tongues pertains to its use (and is sometimes itself called "a tongue," as will be clear in chapter 14), it seems that neither of these would apply to angels, who do not have physical bodies. Therefore, it can be said that by "angels" he means men with the office of angels, that is, those who announce divine things to other people, according to Malachi 2:7: The lips of the priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts. In this sense, If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels means speaking with the tongues not only of lesser people but even of the greater ones who teach others. It can also be understood to mean incorporeal angels, as it says in Psalm 104:4: Who makes your angels spirits. And although they do not have a physical tongue, by analogy, the power by which they reveal their thoughts to others can be called a tongue.

We should understand that there are some things in the angelic mind that higher angels do not communicate to lower ones, and vice versa. This includes the divine essence, which they all see directly, as God shows Himself to all. As it says in Jeremiah 31:34: And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord.’ For all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

However, there are other things in the angelic mind about which the higher angels speak to the lower, but not the other way around. Such are the mysteries of divine providence. The higher angels know more of these mysteries because they see God more clearly than the lower angels do. Hence, the higher angels instruct and enlighten the lower angels about these things—and this can be called speech.

Finally, there is something in angelic knowledge about which the higher speak to the lower, and vice versa. These are the secrets of the heart, which depend on free will and are known to God alone and to the one who has the secret, as it says above in 1 Corinthians 2:11: For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? These secrets become known to another only when the one who has them reveals them, whether that angel is of a lower or higher rank. This kind of revelation happens when a lower angel speaks to a higher one, not by enlightening but by some form of signification. For in each angel there is something that is naturally known by another angel. Therefore, when that which is naturally known is presented as a sign of that which is unknown, the hidden thing is revealed. Such a revelation is called "speech" by analogy with humans, who reveal the secrets of their hearts to others through audible words or other outwardly apparent physical signs. The power to reveal one's own thoughts in this way is, therefore, called a "tongue" metaphorically.

Next, with the words, and if I have prophecy, he shows the same principle applies to things related to knowledge. We should note that he previously discussed four charismatic graces related to knowledge: wisdom, knowledge, faith, and prophecy. He begins here with prophecy, saying, if I have prophetic powers, through which secrets are divinely revealed, as it says in 2 Peter 1:21: No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Secondly, regarding wisdom, he adds: and understand all mysteries, that is, the secrets of the divinity which pertain to wisdom, as it says above in 1 Corinthians 2:7: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God. Thirdly, regarding knowledge, he says: and all knowledge, whether humanly acquired, as by the philosophers, or divinely infused, as in the apostles: It was he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists .

Fourthly, regarding faith, he adds: and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains. It is possible to explain "all faith" as all the articles of faith, but it is better to explain it as perfect faith, because of the phrase that follows: so as to remove mountains. For it says in Matthew 17:20: If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move hence to yonder place,’ and it will move. And although a grain of mustard seed is very tiny, here it signifies not tiny faith but perfect faith, as in Matthew 21:21: If you have faith and never doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will be done. Faith that does not doubt, therefore, is compared to a grain of mustard seed, which, the more it is crushed, the more its strength is perceived.

Some object that although many saints had perfect faith, no one is recorded to have moved mountains. This is resolved by what is said above in 1 Corinthians 12:7: To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. That is, miracles are performed by the grace of the Holy Spirit at the time, in the place, and in the manner that the needs of the Church require. Many saints have done much greater things than moving mountains when it was useful for the faith: for example, raising the dead, parting the sea, and performing other works of this nature. And they would have moved mountains, if it had been necessary. This can also refer to the expulsion of demons from human bodies, for demons are called "mountains" on account of their pride: Before your feet stumble on the twilight mountains... I am against you, O destroying mountain, which destroys the whole earth (Jeremiah 13:16; Jeremiah 51:25). The performance of miracles is attributed to faith that does not doubt, because such faith rests on God's omnipotence, through which miracles are performed.

If, I say, I had all the above gifts related to the perfection of the intellect, and have not charity, through which the will is perfected, I am nothing in the order of grace. About this order it says in Ephesians 2:10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. Hence Ezekiel 28:19 says against someone: You have come to a dreadful end, and shall be no more forever. This occurs because of a lack of charity; without it, the use of these gifts is not good. As it says above in 1 Corinthians 8:1: Knowledge puffs up, but charity builds up.

It should be noted that the Apostle speaks here about wisdom and knowledge as they pertain to the charismatic gifts, which can exist without charity. For when they are numbered among the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, they are never possessed without charity. Hence, Wisdom 1:4 says: Wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, and Wisdom 10:10: She gave him the knowledge of holy things. As for prophecy and faith, it is clear that they can be possessed without charity. It should be noted here that strong faith, even without charity, can perform miracles. Hence, in Matthew 7:22 some will say: Did we not prophesy in your name... and do many mighty works in your name? The answer given to them is: I never knew you. For the Holy Spirit performs wonders even through the wicked, just as He speaks the truth through them.

Next, when he says, And if I give away all I have, he shows the same principle applies to works. These consist of a person's doing good deeds, as it says in Galatians 6:9, Let us not grow weary in well-doing, and enduring evils patiently, as in Psalm 94:15: For justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it. Among good works, acts of piety receive special commendation, as it says in 1 Timothy 4:8: Piety is of value in every way. In regard to this work, he designates four conditions:

1. The work of piety should not be kept in one lump but divided among many, as it says in Psalm 112:9: He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor. This is what he means when he says, if I give away.
2. The work of piety should be performed to relieve a need, not to serve excess, as it says in Isaiah 58:7: Share your bread with the hungry. This is what he means by giving it as food.
3. The work of piety should be directed to those in need, according to Luke 14:13: When you give a feast, invite the poor. This is what he means by giving to the poor.
4. It pertains to perfection that a person gives all his goods for works of piety, as it says in Matthew 19:21: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor. This is what he means by giving all that you have.

Among the evils one endures patiently, the greatest is martyrdom. As it says in Matthew 5:10: Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. He commends this act in four ways:

1. It is more praiseworthy to offer oneself to suffering when the need is imminent, for example, for the defense of the faith, than to be captured and then suffer. Therefore, he says, if I deliver up. This is what is said of Christ in Ephesians 5:2: He gave himself up for us.
2. The loss of one's body is more serious than the loss of possessions. Regarding possessions, some are commended in Hebrews 10:34: You joyfully accepted the plundering of your property. Therefore, he says, my body, as in Isaiah 50:6: I gave my back to the smiters.
3. It is more praiseworthy for one to expose his own body to punishment than the body of his son or another relative. For this, a certain woman is commended in 2 Maccabees 7:21: Though she saw her seven sons perish on a single day, she bore it with great courage. And therefore he says, my body, as in Judges 5:9: My heart goes out to the commanders of Israel who offered themselves willingly among the people.
4. Martyrdom is made praiseworthy by the intensity of the pain, about which he adds: to be burned, like Saint Lawrence, who was like "fire and incense in the censer."

If, I say, I should do all the works mentioned, but I do not have charity—either because the will to sin mortally is present alongside these works, or because they are done for vainglory—I gain nothing. That is, I gain nothing as far as the merit of eternal life is concerned, which is promised only to those who love God. It should be noted that he compares speech without charity to the sound of a non-living object, and says the person himself is "nothing." But works done for the wrong end, if they are without charity, he calls fruitless: Their hope is vain, their labor is unprofitable .

After showing that charity is so necessary that without it no spiritual gifts are sufficient for salvation, the Apostle now shows that it is so useful and of such efficacious strength that through it all virtuous works are completed. First, he makes two quasi-general statements; secondly, he mentions in particular the virtuous works that are completed by charity (verse 4b).

Regarding the first, he does two things. For every virtue consists in this: that in acting, one is well-disposed for enduring evil things or for accomplishing good things. Therefore, regarding enduring evil, he says that charity is patient, meaning it makes one endure evils patiently. For when a man loves someone, on account of the beloved’s love he endures all difficulties with ease; similarly, a person who loves God patiently endures any adversity for love of Him. Hence it says in Song of Solomon 8:7, “Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it”; and in James 1:4, “Patience has a perfect work.”

But as for performing good works, he adds that love is kind. Benignity is described as a good fire, so that just as fire melts metal and makes it flow, so charity inclines a person not to keep the good things he has but to make them flow to others. For it says in Proverbs 5:16, “Let your springs be scattered abroad, and streams of water in the streets,” and this is what charity does. Hence, it says in 1 John 3:17, “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees a brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” Therefore, Ephesians 4:32 also says, “Be kind and merciful to one another,” and Wisdom 1:6 says, “Wisdom is a kindly spirit.”

Then, when he says, Love is not jealous, he mentions in particular the virtuous works that charity produces. Because two things pertain to a virtue—namely, to refrain from evil and to do good, as it says in Psalm 34:14, “Depart from evil and do good,” and in Isaiah 1:16, “Cease to do evil, learn to do good”—he first shows how charity avoids all evil, and secondly, how it accomplishes good (verse 4c). But man cannot do evil effectively to God, but only to himself and to his neighbor, as it says in Job 35:6, “If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him?” and later (verse 8), “Your wickedness concerns a man like yourself.” Therefore, he first shows how charity avoids evils against one’s neighbor, and secondly, how it avoids the evils by which someone is disordered within himself.

Evil against one’s neighbor can exist in the will or emotions, as well as externally. It exists in the will and emotions especially when a person, through envy, grieves over his neighbor’s good. This is directly contrary to charity, which inclines a person to love his neighbor as himself, as it says in Leviticus 19:18. Therefore, it pertains to charity that just as a person rejoices in his own goods, so he should rejoice in the goods of his neighbor. It follows from this that charity excludes envy. And this is what he says: Love is not jealous. Hence it says in Psalm 37:1, “Be not envious of wrongdoers”; and in Proverbs 23:17, “Let not your heart envy sinners.” As for the outward effect, he adds that it does not act wrongly, that is, perversely, against anyone. For no one acts unjustly against one he loves. “Cease to do evil” (Isaiah 1:16).

Then, when he says, is not arrogant, he shows that charity makes one avoid the evils by which one is disordered within himself: first, regarding the passions, and secondly, regarding choice (verse 5b).

First, indeed, regarding pride, which is a disordered desire for one’s own excellence. One seeks his own excellence in a disordered manner when he is not satisfied to remain in the station that has been established for him by God. Therefore it says in Sirach 10:12, “The beginning of man’s pride is to depart from the Lord.” This happens when a man does not wish to remain under the rule of God’s arrangement. This is opposed to charity, by which one loves God above all things. “Puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head” (Colossians 2:18–19). It is right to compare pride to arrogance. For that which is puffed up does not have solidity but only its appearance; so the proud seem to themselves to be great, while they really lack true greatness, which cannot exist without the divine order. “He will dash them speechless to the ground” .

The chief daughter of pride is ambition, through which one seeks to be foremost. Charity also excludes this, seeking rather to serve, as it says in Galatians 5:13, “Through love be servants of one another.” Therefore, he adds that love is not ambitious, meaning it makes a man avoid ambition. “Do not seek from the Lord the highest office, nor the seat of honor from the king” .

Secondly, he shows how charity excludes the disorder of cupidity when he says, Love does not seek its own. This is understood precisely: it does not neglect the good of others. For one who loves others as himself seeks the good of others just as he seeks his own. Hence the Apostle said above, “Not seeking my own advantage, but that of many” (1 Corinthians 10:33). Against this, it is said of some, “They all look after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 2:21). It is also possible to understand that love does not seek its own in another way: that it does not seek the return of what has been taken from it, namely, in a court case that would cause scandal. This is because it loves the salvation of a neighbor more than money, as it says in Philippians 4:17, “Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.”

Thirdly, he shows how charity excludes the disorder of anger, saying, It is not irritable, meaning it is not provoked to anger. For anger is an inordinate desire for revenge. But it pertains to charity to forgive offenses rather than to seek revenge excessively. “Forbearing one another, if one has a complaint against another” (Colossians 3:13); “The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).

Then, when he says, is not resentful (thinks no evil), he shows how charity excludes disordered choosing. Now choice is, as it says in Ethics III, the desire for what has already been thought about and weighed. Therefore, a man sins from choice and not from passion when, by a plan of his reason, his affections are stirred to evil. Therefore, charity first of all excludes perverse counsel. He says, Charity thinks no evil, meaning it does not permit one to devise how to accomplish something evil. “Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds!” (Micah 2:1); “Remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes” (Isaiah 1:16). Alternatively, charity thinks no evil because it does not permit one to think evil of his neighbor through various suspicions and rash judgments. “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” (Matthew 9:4).

Secondly, charity excludes an inordinate love for evil; hence he says, it does not rejoice in wrongdoing. For one who sins from passion commits sin with some remorse and sorrow, but one who sins from choice rejoices in the fact that he commits sin, as it says in Proverbs 2:14, “You rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil.” But charity prevents this, inasmuch as it is the love of the supreme good, to whom all sin is offensive. Or he says that charity does not rejoice over evil committed by a neighbor; in fact, it laments over it, inasmuch as it is opposed to our neighbor’s salvation, which it desires. “I fear that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before” (2 Corinthians 12:21).

Then, when he says, but rejoices, he shows how charity makes one do good: first, regarding one’s neighbor, and secondly, regarding God (verse 7b).

Regarding his neighbor, a person does good in two ways. First, by rejoicing in his neighbor's good. Regarding this, he says, it rejoices in the truth—namely, the truth of a neighbor, of life, of doctrine, or of justice—inasmuch as it loves its neighbor as itself. “I rejoice greatly to find some of your children following the truth” (2 John 1:4). Secondly, by enduring the evils of his neighbor to the extent that it is fitting. Regarding this, he says, love bears all things, meaning that without anxiety it tolerates all the shortcomings of a neighbor or any adversity whatsoever. “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak” (Romans 15:1); “Carry one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ”—namely, charity (Galatians 6:2).

Then, when he says, believes all things, he shows how charity makes one do good in relation to God. This is done especially through the theological virtues, which have God as their object. In addition to charity, the other two, as will be said below, are faith and hope. Therefore, regarding faith, he says it believes all things, namely, all things that are divinely revealed. “Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). But to believe all things said by men is light-headedness, as it says in Sirach 19:4, “One who trusts others too quickly is light-minded.” Regarding hope, he says it hopes all things, namely, all things that are promised by God. “You who fear the Lord, hope for good things” . And so that hope is not discouraged by the delay, he adds that it endures all things, meaning it patiently awaits what God has promised, in spite of any delay, as it says in Habakkuk 2:3, “If it seems slow, wait for it”; and in Psalm 27:14, “Let your heart take courage and wait for the Lord.”

After showing that charity excels the other gifts of the Holy Spirit because of its necessity and fruitfulness, the Apostle now shows the excellence of charity over the other gifts with regard to its permanence. Concerning this, he does three things. First, he states the difference between charity and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit in terms of permanence. Second, he proves what he has said. Third, he draws the intended conclusion (1 Corinthians 13:13). Regarding the first point, he does two things: first, he declares the permanence of charity, and second, he declares the ending of other gifts (1 Corinthians 13:8b).

First, therefore, he says, Charity never ends. Some have misunderstood this and fallen into error, saying that charity, once possessed, can never be lost. This opinion seems consistent with 1 John 3:9: No one born of God commits sin, because his seed remains in him.

But this opinion is false, because someone possessing charity can fall away from it through sin, as it says in Revelation 2:4-5: You have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember, then, from what you have fallen, and do penance. This is so because charity is received in a person’s soul according to that person's nature—that is, one can choose to use it or not. As long as a person uses it, he cannot sin, because the use of charity is to love God above all things, leaving nothing for the sake of which he would offend God. This is how the statement from John is to be understood.

Furthermore, this interpretation does not align with the Apostle’s intention. He is not speaking here about the ending of spiritual gifts through mortal sin, but rather about the ending of the spiritual gifts of this life upon the arrival of glory. Therefore, the Apostle’s meaning is that charity never ends because, just as it exists in our earthly life, so it will remain and even increase in the state of glory. As Isaiah 31:9 says, Says the Lord, whose fire is in Zion—that is, in the Church militant—and whose furnace is in Jerusalem—that is, in the peace of the heavenly homeland.

Then, when he says, as for prophecies, they will pass away, he explains the ending of other spiritual gifts, especially those that seem most important. Regarding prophecy, he says it will cease because it will have no place in the future glory for two reasons. First, prophecy concerns the future, but that glorious state does not await anything in the future; it will be the final completion of everything previously foretold. Hence, Psalms 48:9 says, As we have heard... so have we seen in the city of our God.

Second, prophecy involves figurative and enigmatic knowledge, which will cease in heaven. As God says in Numbers 12:6, If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known to him in a vision; I will speak with him in a dream. And in Hosea 12:10, It was I who multiplied visions and through the prophets gave parables.

Second, regarding the gift of tongues, he says, as for tongues, they will cease. This should not be understood as referring to the physical body parts called tongues, for as it says later (1 Corinthians 15:52), The dead will be raised imperishable, that is, without the loss of any body parts. Nor should it be understood as the use of the physical tongue, for in heaven there will be vocal praise, as Psalm 149:6 says, Let the high praises of God be in their throats, as a gloss explains.

Therefore, this must be understood as the gift of tongues, by which some in the early Church spoke in various languages, as described in Acts 2:4. In the future glory, everyone will understand every language, so it will not be necessary to speak in different tongues. Indeed, from the beginning of the human race, as Genesis 11:1 says, The whole earth had one language and few words. This will be even more true in the final state, in which there will be complete unity.

Third, regarding knowledge, he adds, as for knowledge, it will pass away. From this, some have assumed that acquired knowledge is totally destroyed with the body. To investigate the truth, we must consider that the cognitive power is twofold: the sensitive power and the intellective power. There is a difference between them, because the sensitive power is the act of a physical organ and therefore ceases to exist when the body dies. The intellective power, however, is not the act of any bodily organ, as is proven in Book III of Aristotle’s On the Soul, and therefore it must remain when the body dies. Consequently, if any acquired knowledge is preserved in the intellective part of the soul, it must remain after death.

Some have supposed that the intelligible species are not preserved in the possible intellect except while it is actively understanding. They argue that the species of the phantasms are preserved in the powers of the sensitive soul (for example, in the memory or imagination), so that when the possible intellect wants to think of something new—even things it previously understood—it must always abstract from the phantasms by the light of the active intellect. According to this view, it follows that knowledge acquired here does not remain after death.

This position, however, is contrary to reason. It is obvious that the intelligible species are received into the possible intellect at least while it is actively understanding. But whatever is received into something exists in it according to the nature of the recipient. Therefore, since the substance of the possible intellect is fixed and unchangeable, it follows that the intelligible species remain in it unchangeably.

Second, this position is against the authority of the Philosopher (Aristotle) in Book III of On the Soul. He says that when the possible intellect knows anything, it is then also understanding in potential. It is clear, then, that it possesses an intelligible species, through which it is said to be knowing, and yet it is still in potential to understand actively. Thus, the intelligible species are in the possible intellect even when it is not actively understanding.

Hence, the Philosopher says that the intellective soul is the "locus of the species," because the intelligible species are preserved in it. Yet, in this life, the intellect needs to refer to the phantasms in order to actually understand—not only to abstract species from them but also to apply the species it already possesses to them. The proof of this is that if the organ of imagination or memory is injured, a person is prevented not only from acquiring new knowledge but also from using knowledge previously possessed.

Therefore, knowledge remains in the soul after the death of the body with respect to the intelligible species, but not with respect to inspecting phantasms. The disembodied soul does not need phantasms, since it exists and acts without being united to the body. It is in this sense—referring to our dependence on phantasms—that the Apostle says knowledge will be destroyed. Hence, Isaiah 29:14 says, The wisdom of their wise men shall perish.

Then, when he says, for our knowledge is imperfect, he proves what he had said. First, he presents a proof, and second, he clarifies the things contained in the proof (1 Corinthians 13:11).

To prove his proposition, he presents this argument: When the perfect comes, the imperfect ceases; but gifts other than charity are imperfect. Therefore, they will cease when the perfection of glory arrives. First, he proposes the minor premise regarding the imperfection of knowledge, saying, for we know in part—that is, imperfectly, for a part is by nature something imperfect. This is especially true of our knowledge of God, as it says in Job 36:26, Behold, God is great, and we know him not, and in Job 26:14, Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways. He also proposes the imperfection of prophecy when he adds, and we prophesy in part—that is, imperfectly. For prophecy is knowledge with imperfection, as has been said. But he is silent about the gift of tongues, which is more imperfect than these two, as will be shown (1 Corinthians 14:2).

Second, he proves the major premise, saying, But when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away—that is, every imperfection will be taken away. Of this perfection, it says in 1 Peter 5:10, After you have suffered a little while, he will restore and strengthen you.

But according to this, it seems that even charity will pass away with future glory, because it is imperfect in the present life compared with the life of glory. The answer is that imperfection is related to that which is called imperfect in two ways. Sometimes it pertains to a thing’s very nature, and sometimes it is accidental to it. For example, imperfection pertains to the very notion of a boy, but not of a man. Therefore, when perfect age comes, boyhood ceases, but human nature becomes perfect. Imperfection, therefore, is part of the very notion of knowledge as we possess it here, inasmuch as it is known from sensible things. The same is true of the nature of prophecy, inasmuch as it is figurative knowledge oriented toward the future. But this is not so for the very notion of charity, which pertains to loving a known good. Therefore, with the coming of perfect grace, prophecy and knowledge cease, but charity does not cease. It is made perfect, because the more perfectly God is known, the more perfectly he will be loved.

Then, when he says, When I was a child, he clarifies what he said above. First, he clarifies the major premise—that with the coming of the perfect, the imperfect ceases. Second, he clarifies the minor premise—that knowledge and prophecy are imperfect (1 Corinthians 13:12).

He shows the first point by an analogy between the perfect and imperfect found in physical age. He first describes the imperfect state of childhood, saying, When I was a child... I spoke as a child, that is, as was fitting for a child, by babbling. For this reason, wisdom is commended for making the tongues of babes speak clearly , while the child who speaks utters vanities: Everyone utters vanities to his neighbor (Psalms 12:2). Regarding judgment, he adds, I thought like a child, that is, I accepted or rejected certain things foolishly, as children do. They sometimes reject precious things and desire worthless things, as it says in Proverbs 1:22, How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? Therefore, they think like children who despise spiritual things and desire earthly things. Of such people it says in Philippians 3:19, They glory in their shame, with their minds set on earthly things. Regarding reasoning, he says, I reasoned like a child, that is, about certain vain things: The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain (Psalms 94:11).

Now, the Apostle seems to place these three in reverse order. For speech precedes the judgment of reason, but judgment presupposes the activity of reason. This sufficiently befits childish imperfection, in which there is speech without judgment, and judgment without deliberation. I spoke as a child can be referred to the gift of tongues; I thought as a child to the gift of prophecy; and finally, I reasoned as a child to the gift of knowledge.

Second, he mentions what pertains to adulthood, saying, When I became a man... I gave up childish ways. This means he cast them off, because, as it says in Isaiah 65:20, For the child shall die one hundred years old, and the sinner one hundred years old shall be accursed. It should be recognized that the Apostle is here comparing the present life to childhood on account of its imperfection, and the state of future glory to manhood on account of its perfection.

Here he speaks of the vision, which is the knowledge of God. Therefore, all the preceding gifts must be understood as destined to be eliminated, since they are directed toward the knowledge of God. In this regard, he does two things: first, he proves his proposal in general; second, he applies it in detail to himself (1 Corinthians 13:12).

He says, therefore: I have said that we know imperfectly because we know in a mirror dimly, but then—that is, in heaven—we will see face to face. The first consideration concerns what it means to see through a mirror dimly; the second, what it means to see face to face.

It should be noted, therefore, that a sensible object can be seen in three ways. First, by its own presence in the one seeing, as light is present in the eye. Second, by the presence of its likeness in the sense, derived immediately from the object, as the whiteness of a wall is seen; even though the whiteness itself does not exist in the eye, its likeness does (although the eye does not see the likeness itself). Or third, by the presence of a likeness derived not immediately from the object itself, but from a likeness of the object in something else, as when a person is seen in a mirror. In this case, the likeness of the person is not immediately in the eye but is a reflection from the mirror.

Applying this to the vision of God, I say that by natural knowledge, God alone sees Himself, because in God, essence and intellect are the same. Therefore, His own essence is present to His intellect. In the second way, the angels perhaps see God by natural knowledge, since a likeness of the divine essence is reflected immediately upon them. But in the third way, we know God in this life, since we know the invisible things of God through created things, as it says in Romans 1:20. And so, all creation is a mirror for us, because from the order, goodness, and multitude that God has caused in things, we come to a knowledge of His power, goodness, and eminence. This knowledge is what is called seeing in a mirror.

It should be further noted that this kind of likeness—one reflected from another—is twofold. Sometimes it is clear and open, like an image in a mirror. At other times, it is obscure and secret, and then the vision is called an enigma, as in the riddle: "A mother begot me, and soon she is born from me." This is a secret expressed through a simile. It refers to ice, which is born from frozen water, while water is born from melted ice.

Therefore, it is clear that vision through a "likeness of a likeness" is vision in a mirror. When this likeness is hidden, it is in an enigma, but a clear and open likeness constitutes another kind of allegorical vision. Thus, since we know the invisible things of God through created things, we are said to see through a mirror. And since those invisible things are secrets to us, we see in an enigma. Alternatively, we see now through a mirror, that is, by our reason; in this case, "through" designates only the faculty. It is as if to say: we see through a mirror, meaning, by a power of our soul.

Regarding the second point, it should be noted that God as God does not have a face; therefore, the expression face to face is metaphorical. When we see something in a mirror, we do not see the thing itself, but its likeness. But when we see someone face to face, we see them as they are. Therefore, when the Apostle says that in heaven we will see face to face, he means nothing other than that we will see the very essence of God: We shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

However, an objection is raised from Genesis 32:30: I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. It is evident, however, that Jacob did not see the essence of God at that time. Therefore, seeing face to face must not mean seeing the essence of God. The answer is that Jacob's vision was an imaginary one. An imaginary vision, which involves seeing a form in which God appears, is a higher degree of grace than the lowest grace, which is only to hear words. Hence, to indicate the excellence of the imaginary vision shown to him, Jacob says, I have seen the Lord face to face. This means, "I have seen the Lord through my imagination in His own chosen image, and not through His essence." For if he had seen God's essence, it would not have been an imaginary vision.

Still, some say that in heaven the divine essence will be seen through a created likeness. This, however, is entirely false and impossible. Something can never be known in its essence by a likeness that does not agree with that thing in its species. For a stone cannot be known as it is except through the species of "stone" that is in the soul. No likeness can lead to knowledge of a thing’s essence if it differs from that thing in species, and much less if it differs in genus. The essence of a man, and even less the essence of an angel, cannot be known through the species of a horse or of whiteness. Much less, then, can the divine essence be seen through any created species whatsoever, since any created species in the soul is more distant from the divine essence than the species of a horse or whiteness is from the essence of an angel.

Therefore, to suppose that God is seen only by a likeness or through some brilliance of His clarity is to suppose that the divine essence is not seen at all. Furthermore, the soul itself is a certain likeness of God. If we were to see God only through another created likeness in heaven, that vision would be no different from the mirror-like and enigmatic vision we have in this life. It would not be the clear and open vision promised to the saints in glory, in which our beatitude will consist. This is why Augustine says in a gloss that a vision of God through a likeness pertains to a vision "in a mirror and an enigma." It would also follow that humanity's final beatitude would consist in something other than God, which is foreign to the faith. Even the natural human desire to reach the first cause of all things and to know Him in Himself would be in vain.

He continues: Now I know in part. Here he proves in particular for himself what he had proved in general about knowledge. He says: Now—that is, in the present life—I, Paul, know in part—that is, obscurely and imperfectly. But then—that is, in heaven—I will know as I am known. Just as God knows my essence, so I will know God through His essence. The word "as" does not imply equality of knowledge, but only similarity.

Then he draws his main conclusion, when he says: Now there abide... The reason he does not mention all the gifts but only three is that these three join us to God directly. The other gifts do not join us to God except through the mediation of these three. Also, the other gifts prepare for the birth of these three in human hearts. For this reason, only these three—faith, hope, and charity—are called theological virtues, because they have God as their immediate object.

But since these gifts exist for perfecting the affections or the intellect—with charity perfecting the affections and faith perfecting the intellect—it might seem that hope is unnecessary and superfluous. The answer is that love is a unitive force, and all love consists in some kind of union. Thus, according to the Philosopher, different kinds of friendship are distinguished by their various kinds of union.

Now, we have a twofold union with God. The first relates to the goods of nature, which we receive from Him in this life. The second relates to beatitude, as through grace we partake here of heavenly felicity, as far as is possible in this life. We also hope to arrive at the perfect attainment of that eternal beatitude and become citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Corresponding to the first kind of communion with God, there is a natural friendship, by which every being, simply by existing, seeks and desires God as its end, as the first cause and supreme being. Corresponding to the second kind of communion, there is the love of charity, by which an intellectual creature alone loves God. But because nothing can be loved unless it is known, the love of charity first requires a knowledge of God. And because this knowledge is supernatural, it first requires faith, which is concerned with things not seen. Second, so that a person does not fail or fall away, hope is required, through which one strives toward that end as something attainable. Concerning these three, it says in Sirach 2:8: You who fear the Lord, believe in him (pertaining to hope), and you who fear the Lord, love him (pertaining to charity). Therefore, these three remain now, but charity is the greatest of them for the reasons already given.