Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 13:8-11

"Love never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall be done away; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things." — 1 Corinthians 13:8-11 (ASV)

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.