Thomas Aquinas Commentary 2 Corinthians 12

Having commended himself for the evils he suffered, the Apostle continues to commend himself by showing the superiority of his standing regarding the good things he received from God. He first gloried in his weaknesses, but now he glories in his good things. In this regard, he does two things. First, he commends himself based on the good things received from God; second, he begs pardon for this commendation, alleging that he is compelled to do it (2 Corinthians 12:11).

Concerning the first point, he does two things. First, he extols the greatness of the things conferred on him by God; second, he discloses the remedy given to him against the danger of pride (2 Corinthians 12:7). Regarding the first of these, he does two things: first, he mentions a good divinely conferred; second, he shows how he behaved in regard to glorying in it (2 Corinthians 12:5). And on that first point, he again does two things: first, he shows in general that this was divinely bestowed, and second, he describes it in particular (2 Corinthians 12:2).

The good divinely bestowed on the Apostle are revelations made to him by God, and it is of these that he wishes to glory. Therefore, he says: If I must boast, meaning, "because I must glory for your sake," although in itself there is nothing to be gained by it. A person who glories in a good he has received runs the risk of losing what he has. As it is said, through vainglory the treasures of the virtues are opened, and the clouds fly out like birds . This is signified in the story of Hezekiah, when he showed the treasures of the Lord’s house to the messengers of the king of Babylon (Isaiah 39:2). And although, absolutely speaking, it is not expedient to glory, a person may nevertheless glory for some special reason, as is clear from what has been stated above. Therefore, he says that because he must boast, he will leave off commending himself for his infirmities and will instead commend himself by coming to the visions and revelations of the Lord.

Here, the difference between a vision and a revelation should be noted. A revelation includes a vision, but a vision does not necessarily include a revelation. Sometimes things are seen, but their meaning and significance are hidden from the one who sees them; in that case, it is only a vision. This was the case in the visions of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar; the vision of the ears of corn and of the statue was only a vision. But for Joseph and Daniel, who understood the meaning of what was seen, it was both a revelation and a prophecy.

Both vision and revelation are sometimes produced by God: There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries (Daniel 2:28); It was I who multiplied visions (Hosea 12:10); Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law (Psalms 119:18). But sometimes they are produced by an evil spirit: They prophesied by Baal and led my people Israel astray (Jeremiah 23:13). The Apostle received both vision and revelation, because he fully understood the secret things he saw. They were produced by the Lord and not by an evil spirit. Hence he says, "I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord."

Now, a revelation is the removing of a veil. A veil can be of two kinds. One is on the part of the observer, and this is unbelief, sin, or hardness of heart. Of this veil, the Apostle said earlier, Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds (2 Corinthians 3:15). The other is on the part of the object seen, which is when spiritual things are presented to someone under the figures of perceptible objects. Concerning this, it says in Numbers 4 that the priests delivered the veiled vessels of the sanctuary to the Levites, because weaker persons cannot grasp spiritual things as they are in themselves. This is why the Lord spoke to the multitudes in parables (Matthew 13:13).

Then the Apostle describes these visions and revelations in detail, speaking of himself as if he were another person. Thus, he says, "I know a man in Christ." He mentions two visions: the first begins here, and the second at verse 3.

When speaking of the first vision, the Apostle makes a distinction, for he says that in this revelation he knew certain things and did not know others. He knew three things: the condition of the observer, the time of the vision, and the high point of the vision. But he says that he did not know the disposition of the observer, that is, whether in the body or out of the body I do not know.

Let us therefore examine what he knew, so that through what is known we may more easily understand what was not known.

1. First, he knew the condition of the observer, which is praiseworthy because he was "in Christ," that is, conformed to Christ. On the other hand, no one is in Christ unless he has charity, because He who abides in love abides in God (1 John 4:16). Therefore, he knew that he had charity, which seems contrary to what is stated in Ecclesiastes 9:1: The righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God; whether it is love or hate man does not know. I answer that "being in Christ" can be understood in two ways. One way is by faith and the sacrament of faith, according to Galatians 3:27: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. It is in this sense that the Apostle knew he was in Christ. The other way a person is said to be in Christ is through charity, and in this way, no one knows for certain that he is in Christ, except by certain tests and signs. He may feel himself so disposed and joined to Christ that he would not permit himself to be separated from Him for any reason, including death. The Apostle experienced this in himself when he said: For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38). Hence, he could have had such signs that he was in the charity of Christ.
2. Second, he knew the time of the vision, which was fittingly "fourteen years ago." Fourteen years had passed from the time he saw the vision until he wrote this epistle. When he wrote this epistle, he had not yet been cast into prison, so it seems to have been written at the beginning of Nero’s reign, by whom he was killed much later. If we go back fourteen years from the start of Nero’s reign, it is clear that the Apostle had these visions at the beginning of his conversion. He had been converted to Christ in the same year that the Lord suffered. Christ suffered near the end of Tiberius Caesar’s reign, who was succeeded at death by the emperor Gaius, who reigned for four years, after which Nero became emperor. Therefore, between Tiberius and Nero, there were four years. If we add two years from Tiberius’s reign (since he was not yet dead when Paul was converted) and the eight years of Nero’s reign that had passed when he wrote this epistle, there were fourteen years between his conversion and the writing of this letter. Therefore, some say quite probably that the Apostle had these visions during those three days after he was struck down by the Lord, when he remained without seeing, eating, or drinking (Acts 9:9). He recalls the time of his conversion to show that if he was so pleasing to Christ from the very beginning that He revealed such things to him, then how much more pleasing must he have been after fourteen years, when he had grown in charity before God and in virtues and graces.
3. Third, let us see the high point of the vision: he was "caught up (raptus) to the third heaven." It should be noted that it is one thing to be the victim of thievery and another to be "rapt." The former properly occurs when something is taken away from another secretly; hence, in Genesis 40:13, Joseph said, For I was indeed stolen out of the land of the Hebrews. A person is properly "rapt" when something is taken suddenly and by force: As the torrent that passes swiftly (raptim)—that is, suddenly and rapidly—in the valleys (Job 6:15). This is why plunderers who despoil violently are called ravagers (raptores).

Note that a person can be "rapt" from other people, as Enoch was: He was caught up (raptim) lest evil change his understanding or guile deceive his soul . Sometimes the soul is rapt from the body: Fool! This night your soul is required of you (Luke 12:20). Sometimes a person is said to be rapt by himself, when for some reason he is made to be outside himself; this is the same as ecstasy. A person can be outside himself in both his appetitive and cognitive powers. By the appetitive power, a person is "in himself" when he cares only for his own things, but he is "outside himself" when he cares not for his own things but for things that pertain to others. This is the work of charity: Love does not insist on its own way (1 Corinthians 13:5). Concerning this ecstasy, Dionysius says in The Divine Names (chapter 4): "Ecstasy is produced by divine love, not permitting one to be a lover of self but of the beloved." A person is made to be outside himself according to the cognitive power when he is raised above the human mode of seeing something. This is the rapture about which the Apostle is speaking here.

It should be noted that the natural mode of human knowing is for a person to know simultaneously with his mental power (the intellect) and with a bodily power (a sense). This is why a person in a state of knowing has free judgment of the intellect when the senses are well-disposed in their vigor and not hindered, as happens during sleep. Therefore, a person is made to be "outside himself" when he is removed from this natural disposition for knowing—that is, when the intellect, withdrawn from the use of the senses and perceptible things, is moved to see certain things.

This occurs in two ways. First, it can happen through a lack of power, however it is produced. This occurs in cases of frenzy and other mental conditions, so that this withdrawal from the senses is not a state of being elevated but of being cast down, because the person's power has been weakened. The other way is by divine power, and then it is, properly speaking, an elevation. Since an agent makes the thing it works on to be like itself, a withdrawal from the senses produced by divine power is something higher than human nature.

Therefore, a rapture of this sort is defined as "an elevation from that which is according to nature into that which is above nature, produced by the power of a higher nature." In this definition, its genus is mentioned when it is called an "elevation"; the efficient cause is mentioned, because it is "by the power of a higher nature"; and the two ends of the change are mentioned—the starting point and the destination—when it is described as being "from that which is according to nature into what is above nature." Thus, it is clear what rapture is.

Then he mentions the destination reached by the rapture when he says, "to the third heaven." It should be noted that "the third heaven" can be understood in three ways:

1. According to things below the soul. Below the soul are all bodies, as Augustine says in his book On The True Religion. In this way, we can think of a threefold heaven: the ethereal, the sidereal, and the empyrean. The Apostle is said to have been rapt to the third heaven in this sense, meaning he was able to see things in the empyrean heaven, but not to exist there physically, because then he would have known whether he was in the body or out of the body. Or, according to Damascene, who does not accept an empyrean heaven, we can say that the third heaven to which the Apostle was rapt is above the eighth sphere, so that he could clearly see the things that exist above all corporeal nature.
2. According to things in the soul. In this sense, "heaven" refers to a height of mind that transcends natural human knowledge. There are three kinds of sight: bodily sight, by which we see and know bodies; spiritual or imaginary sight, by which we see likenesses of bodies; and intellectual sight, by which we know the nature of things in themselves. The proper object of the intellect is the "what it is" (quod quid est) of things. Such sight, if it takes place in the natural mode (for example, if I see something visible, imagine something previously seen, or understand through mental images), cannot be called heaven. But each of these is called a "heaven" when it is above the natural faculty of human knowledge. For example, if you see something with your bodily eyes above the faculty of nature, then you are rapt into the first heaven. Belshazzar was rapt in this way when he saw the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:5). If you are raised up by the imagination or spirit to know something supernaturally, then you are rapt to the second heaven. Peter was rapt in this way when he saw the linen sheet descending from heaven (Acts 10:11). But if a person were to see intelligible things themselves and their nature—not through perceptible things or mental images—he would be rapt to the third heaven.
3. According to things above the soul. In this way, the three heavens are the three hierarchies of angels. According to this view, the Apostle was rapt to the third heaven, meaning he saw God’s essence as clearly as the angels of the highest and first hierarchy see Him, because they see God in such a way as to receive illumination in God Himself and to know the divine mysteries. This is how Paul saw.

To be rapt to the first heaven is to be alienated from the bodily senses. Since no one can be totally withdrawn from all bodily senses, it is obvious that no one can be rapt in the strict sense to the first heaven, but only in a qualified sense, as when a person is so engrossed in one sense that he is withdrawn from the activity of the others. One is rapt to the second heaven when he is alienated from sense perception to see imaginable things; such a person is always said to be in ecstasy. Thus, when Peter saw the linen sheet, it is said that he was in ecstasy (Acts 10:11). But Paul is said to have been rapt to the third heaven because he was so alienated from the senses and lifted above all bodily things that he saw intelligible things naked and pure, in the way angels and separated souls see them.

What is more, he saw God in His essence, as Augustine expressly says in On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis (Book 12), in a Gloss, and to Paulinus in the book On Seeing God. Furthermore, it is not probable that Moses, the minister of the Old Testament to the Jews, saw God, while the minister of the New Testament to the Gentiles and teacher of the Gentiles was deprived of this gift. Hence, Paul says above, For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor (2 Corinthians 3:9). That Moses saw God in His essence is clear, for he begged God, Show me your face (Exodus 33:13). And although it was denied to him at that time, it is not stated that the Lord ultimately denied him. Augustine says this was granted to him, based on what is stated in Numbers 12:6-7: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. For Moses saw God openly and not in a dark manner.

But would it have been possible for Paul to see God without being rapt? I answer: No. It is impossible for God to be seen in this life by a person who is not alienated from his senses, because no image or mental picture is a sufficient medium for showing God’s essence. Therefore, the mind must be abstracted and alienated from the senses.

But if Paul saw God as the angels of the highest and first hierarchy do, then it seems that he was beatified and, consequently, was immortal. I answer that although he saw God in His essence, he was not absolutely beatified, but only in a qualified sense. It should be noted that the vision of God by His essence takes place by means of a certain light, namely, the light of glory, of which it says in Psalm 36:9, In your light we see light.

This light is communicated to some things as a passing quality and to others as an inhering, connatural form. For example, light is found in the air as a passing form and not as a permanent one, because it vanishes when the sun is absent. Similarly, the light of glory is infused in the mind in two ways. In one way, it is like a permanent, connatural form, and then it makes a mind beatified in the strict sense. This is how it is infused in the beatified in heaven, who are called "comprehenders" and seers. In another way, the light of glory affects a human mind as a passing quality. This is how Paul’s mind was enlightened by the light of glory in his rapture. The very name "rapture" suggests that this was done in a passing manner. Consequently, he was not glorified in the strict sense or did he have the mark of glory, because that brightness was not produced as a permanent property. As a result, it was not derived from the soul into the body, nor did he remain in this state permanently. When he was in rapture, he had only the act of the beatified, but he was not himself beatified. Thus, it is clear what the Apostle saw in his rapture.

Then he tells what he did not know: whether he was in the body or out of the body, although he says that God knew. Hence he says, whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. Some interpret this as meaning that the rapture referred to his body. They say the Apostle did not mean he was unsure if his soul was joined to his body, but rather whether he was rapt with both soul and body simultaneously—transported bodily into heaven as Habakkuk was (Daniel 14:35-39)—or whether it was only his soul that enjoyed the vision of God, as it says in Ezekiel 8:3: He brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem. A certain Jew understood it this way, as Jerome mentions in his Prologue to Daniel (chapter 3 and following), where he says: "Finally, he says that even our Apostle does not dare to say that he was rapt in the body, but said: whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows."

But Augustine disproves this interpretation in On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis (Book 12) because it does not agree with the Apostle's other words. The Apostle says he was rapt to the third heaven; therefore, he knew for certain that it was the third heaven. Consequently, he knew whether that heaven was corporeal or incorporeal. If it was incorporeal, he knew he could not have been rapt there bodily, because a body cannot exist in an incorporeal thing. But if it had been corporeal, he knew that the soul was not there without the body, because a soul joined to a body cannot be in a place where its body is not, unless the "incorporeal heaven" is just a likeness of the bodily heaven. But if that were the case, the Apostle would not have said that he knew he was rapt to the third heaven, but rather to a likeness of heaven. By that same token, it could be said that he was rapt "in the body," meaning in the likeness of a body.

Therefore, it must be admitted, according to Augustine, that no one living this mortal life can see the divine essence. As the Lord says, For man shall not see me and live (Exodus 33:20). This means no one will see God unless he is either entirely separated from the body (so that his soul is not in the body as its form) or, if his soul is in the body as its form, his mind is nonetheless totally and completely alienated from the senses in such a vision. Therefore, it must be said that the Apostle does not know whether his soul was entirely separated from his body in that vision (hence, "whether out of the body"), or whether his soul existed in the body as its form, but his mind was alienated from the bodily senses (hence, "whether in the body"). Even others concede this point.

Having spoken of the first rapture, the Apostle now speaks of a second one. He first mentions the rapture itself, and second, its excellence (2 Corinthians 12:4b).

It should be noted that a certain commentary says this rapture was distinct from the first. If one considers the matter carefully, two events are recorded about the Apostle to which these two raptures can be connected. In Acts 9, it is recorded that he remained for three days without seeing and without eating or drinking; the first rapture, to the third heaven, can be connected to this event. But in Acts 22, it says that he was in a trance in the temple, so the second rapture can be connected to this.

However, this does not seem to be a similar case, because at the time of that trance, the Apostle was subsequently imprisoned, yet he wrote this epistle long before that. Therefore, it must be said that this rapture differs from the first in its destination. For in the first rapture he was taken to the third heaven, but in the second, he was taken to the paradise of God.

If you take "the third heaven" in a physical sense according to the first interpretation of the heavens mentioned earlier, or if it was an imaginary vision, it could be called a physical paradise, meaning he was taken to an earthly paradise. But this is against the author’s intention. Following Paul, we say that he was taken to the third heaven—that is, to a vision of intelligible things as they are seen in themselves and in their own natures, as was said earlier.

Therefore, based on this, we should not understand heaven and paradise as two different places, but as two terms for the same reality—namely, the glory of the saints—with each term highlighting a different aspect. Heaven suggests a certain loftiness accompanied by brightness, while paradise suggests a certain joyful pleasantness. These two qualities are preeminently present in the saints and angels who see God, for they possess a most excellent brightness by which they see God, and a supreme delight by which they enjoy God. Therefore, they are said to be in heaven with respect to the brightness and in paradise with respect to the delight. As it is written: You shall see, and your heart shall rejoice (Isaiah 66:14).

Both of these were bestowed upon the Apostle: to be raised up to that most excellent clarity of knowledge, which he indicates when he says he was taken to the third heaven, and to experience the delight of the divine sweetness, which is why he says he was taken into paradise. As the Psalm says, O how great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord (Psalms 31:20); and again, To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna (Revelation 2:17). This sweetness is the delight experienced in enjoying God, and it is mentioned in Matthew: Enter into the joy of your master (Matthew 25:23). Thus, the destination of the rapture is clear: into paradise, that is, into the sweetness with which those in the heavenly Jerusalem are continually refreshed.

Next, he mentions the excellence of that rapture, because he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. This can be explained in two ways. First, the word “man” can be grammatically connected to “may utter.” The meaning then is this: he heard secret words—that is, he perceived an intimate understanding of God’s secret essence, as if through words—which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Alternatively, “man” can be understood as the one to whom the words may not be uttered. The meaning then is this: he heard words that it is not lawful to utter to a man—that is, to an imperfect man.

According to Augustine, it should be noted that Paul was taken up into a vision of the divine essence, which cannot be perceived through any created image or likeness. Hence, it is clear that what Paul saw of the divine essence cannot be described by any human tongue; otherwise, God would not be incomprehensible. Therefore, according to the first explanation, it must be said that he heard—that is, he contemplated—secret words, meaning the magnificence of the Godhead, which no man can utter. He says “heard” instead of “saw” because that contemplation was an internal act of the soul, in which hearing and seeing are the same, as it says in Numbers 12:8: For I speak to him mouth to mouth. That contemplation is called a vision insofar as God is seen in it, and an utterance insofar as a person is instructed about divine things in it.

Because such spiritual things are not to be disclosed to the simple and imperfect, but to the mature, as it says in 1 Corinthians 2:6, Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, this leads to the second explanation. The secrets he heard there are not lawful to utter to a man—that is, to the imperfect, but only to the spiritual, among whom wisdom is spoken. As it says, It is the glory of God to conceal things (Proverbs 25:2); that is, the necessity of concealing the marvelous things of God belongs to God’s glory. A Psalm, according to the translation of Jerome, says, Your praise, O God, is silent to you (Compare to Psalm 108:2, Vulgate), meaning it cannot be comprehended by our words.

Then, when he says, On behalf of this man I will boast, he shows how he reacted to this glory. In this regard, he does two things: first, he shows that he did not boast in such revelations; and second, he suggests that he has something else in which to boast (2 Corinthians 12:6).

Regarding the first point, the statement, on behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, can be read in two ways. First, the Apostle is showing that he is the one in whom he boasts—that is, he is the one who saw these visions. Second, he is showing that it was someone else who saw these visions. It should be noted that there are two things to consider in a person: the gift of God and the human condition. If a person boasts in a gift of God as received from God, that boasting is good, as was stated earlier (2 Corinthians 10:17). But if he boasts in that gift as if he possessed it on his own, then such boasting is evil: What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift? (1 Corinthians 4:7).

Therefore, according to this principle, the Apostle says, on behalf of this man—that is, for the visions and gifts bestowed on me by God—I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast. This means he will not boast in them as if he were their source, because he received them from God. But if he must boast, he will boast in nothing except his weaknesses; that is, he has nothing in which to boast except for his own condition.

But if the passage is explained as showing that it was someone else who saw these things, even though it was himself, then the meaning is as though he were speaking of another person. He says, on behalf of this man I will boast—that is, for the man who saw this and received these gifts I will boast. But on my own behalf, as if wishing to show that I am such a person, I will not boast except of my weaknesses—that is, in the tribulations I suffer.

Because his opponents could say to him, “O Apostle, it is not strange that you do not boast, because you have nothing in which to boast,” he shows that even apart from these visions he has something in which to boast. Although I might boast in such a man and not in myself, I can still rightfully boast in myself. For if I should wish to boast—either in such tribulations or in other things bestowed on me by God, or even in my weakness—I shall not be a fool. That is, I will not act foolishly. Why? For I will be speaking the truth about the other things in which I can boast besides those visions. He says, I shall not be a fool, because he boasted in the things he had. For when a person boasts in things he does not have, he is speaking foolishly, as it is written: For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked (Revelation 3:17). He also says this because he boasted with sufficient reason, as is clear from what was said before.

Then, when he says, But I refrain from it, he indicates the reason he does not boast about everything, even if he could: he wishes to spare them. Hence he says, I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me (2 Corinthians 12:6). It is as if to say: “I could boast of many other things, but I refrain—that is, I boast sparingly, or I refrain from commending myself, so that I do not become burdensome to you.” God has bestowed on me such things that if you knew them, you would regard me as much greater. These are the many charismatic gifts for which people in this world are accustomed to praise others and consider them great, more so than for any pleasing action. This is why he says, “I do not wish to be commended for these gifts; therefore, I refrain from boasting.” Why? So that no one may think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me.

Alternatively, a person is known in two ways: by their manner of life and by their doctrine. Although he could have done so, the Apostle did not wish to say things about himself that went beyond his life and doctrine. Consequently, he says, I refrain, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me—that is, in my outward conduct—or hears from me—that is, from the doctrine of my preaching, exhortation, and instruction. He does this because they might perhaps think him immortal or an angel. As it is written, A man of understanding remains silent (Proverbs 11:12), and, A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly holds it back (Proverbs 29:11).

Or, he says, But I refrain, on account of his detractors—namely, the false apostles, who said that he boasted out of pride without cause or about things that were not in him. Therefore, he says, But I refrain—that is, I boast sparingly—so that no one (meaning the false apostles) may think of me as having an excessive spirit of pride, more than what he sees in me or has heard from me—that is, beyond what my merits warrant. As the Psalm says, O LORD, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high (Psalms 131:1); and, The greater you are, the more humble yourself in all things (Sirach 3:10, Vulgate).

Here, he speaks of the remedy against pride. In this regard, he does three things:

1. He mentions the remedy that was applied.
2. He describes his prayer to have the remedy removed (verse 8).
3. He tells of the Lord’s answer, which gives the reason for the remedy (verse 9).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that a wise physician very often procures and permits a lesser disease to afflict a person in order to cure or avoid a greater one. For example, to cure a spasm, he might induce a fever. The Apostle shows that this was done to him by the physician of souls, our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ, as the supreme physician of souls, permits His people to fall into lesser sins, and even mortal sins, in order to cure greater ones.

Among all sins, the gravest is pride. Just as charity is the root and beginning of the virtues, so pride is the root and beginning of all vices: Pride is the beginning of all sin (Sirach 10:15, Vulgate). This is made clear in the following way. Charity is called the root of all the virtues because it unites a person to God, who is the ultimate end. Therefore, just as the end is the beginning of all actions to be performed, so charity is the beginning of all the virtues. But pride turns one away from God, for pride is an inordinate desire for one’s own excellence.

If a person seeks some excellence under God, and if he seeks it moderately and for a good end, it can be tolerated. But if this is not done in the proper order, he can even fall into other vices, such as ambition, avarice, and vainglory. Yet, this is not, properly speaking, pride, unless a person seeks excellence without directing it toward God. Therefore, pride, properly so-called, separates one from God and is the root of all vices and the worst of them. This is why God resists the proud, as it says in James 4:6.

Because the material for this vice—that is, pride—is mainly found in things that are good, God sometimes permits His elect to be hindered by something within themselves (for example, an infirmity, some other defect, or even a mortal sin) from obtaining such a good. This is done so that they may be so humbled on this account that they will not take pride in it, and that, being thus humbled, they may recognize that they cannot stand by their own power. Hence it says in Romans 8:28, We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him. This is not because of their sin, but because of God’s providence.

Therefore, because the Apostle had good reason to glory—in the spiritual election by which he was chosen by God (He is a chosen instrument of mine, Acts 9:15), in his knowledge of God’s secrets (for he says that he was caught up into the third heaven where he heard secret words that a man is not permitted to speak), in his endurance of evils (for he had far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death, 2 Corinthians 11:23), in his virginal integrity (for he said, I wish that all were as I myself am, 1 Corinthians 7:7), and especially in the outstanding knowledge with which he shone, which is something that especially puffs one up—for these reasons, the Lord applied a remedy, lest he be lifted up with pride.

This is what he says: to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations. As it is written, Do not exalt yourself through your soul’s counsel, lest your soul be torn in pieces like a bull ; and, Being exalted I have been humbled and troubled (Psalms 88:15, Vulgate). Furthermore, to show that these revelations were given to him, he says, a thorn was given me—that is, for my benefit and my humiliation. As Job says, You have lifted me up and set me as it were upon the wind (Job 31:22). A thorn was given to me, I say, tormenting my body with physical weakness, so that the soul might be healed. For it is said that he literally suffered a great deal from pain in the ileum [pelvis].

Alternatively, it was a thorn in the flesh—that is, of concupiscence arising from his flesh—because he was greatly troubled. As he says, For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do... So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand... So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin (Romans 7:19, 21, 25). Hence, Augustine says that movements of concupiscence existed in him, which God’s grace nevertheless restrained.

That thorn, he says, is a messenger of Satan—that is, a wicked angel. It was an angel sent or permitted by God, but it was Satan’s because Satan’s intention is to subvert, while God’s is to humble and to make one approved. Let the sinner beware, if the Apostle and chosen instrument was not secure.

Now, the Apostle was anxious to have this thorn removed and prayed that it would be; hence he says, Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me. Here it should be noted that a sick person, ignorant of the reason why a physician applies a stinging plaster, asks him to remove it. But the physician, knowing its purpose is for health, does not oblige him, caring more for his improvement. Similarly, the Apostle, feeling that the sting was painful, sought the help of the one true physician to remove it. For he expressly and devoutly asked God three times to remove the thorn from him: We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you (2 Chronicles 20:12). Perhaps he asked this many times, but he asked expressly and earnestly three times. Or, “three times” could mean “many times,” for three is a perfect number. And of course, it was right to ask, because For he wounds, but he binds up (Job 5:18), and Pray that you may not enter into temptation (Luke 22:46).

Then he states the Lord’s answer: but he—that is, the Lord—said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you.’ Here, he does two things. First, he states the Lord’s answer; second, he gives the reason for the answer (verse 9b).

Therefore, he says that he asked, but the Lord said to him, My grace is sufficient for you. It is as if to say: “It is not necessary for this bodily weakness to leave you, because it is not dangerous; you will not be led into impatience, since My grace strengthens you. Nor is it necessary for this weakness of concupiscence to depart, because it will not lead you to sin, for My grace will protect you.” As it is written, Justified by his grace as a gift (Romans 3:24). And of course, God’s grace is sufficient for avoiding evil, doing good, and attaining eternal life: By the grace of God I am what I am (1 Corinthians 15:10); But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:25).

But on the other hand, it says in John 15:16, Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. Therefore, Paul either asked discreetly and deserved to be heard, or he asked indiscreetly and therefore sinned. I answer that a person can speak of one and the same thing in two ways: in one way, according to the thing itself and its own nature; in another way, according to its relation to something else. Hence, it happens that something that is evil in itself and should be avoided can be sought in relation to something else. For example, a medicine, inasmuch as it is bitter, should be avoided; yet, when it is considered in relation to health, a person seeks it.

Therefore, a thorn in the flesh, in and of itself, is to be avoided as troublesome; but inasmuch as it is a means to virtue and an exercise of virtue, it should be desired. But because the secret of divine providence—namely, that the thorn would turn out for his advantage—had not yet been revealed to him, the Apostle considered it to be bad for him in itself. But God, who had ordained this for the good of his humility, did not grant his wish. Indeed, once he understood its purpose, the Apostle gloried in it, saying, I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. And although God did not grant his specific wish, He still heard him—and always hears His saints—for their ultimate advantage. Hence, Jerome says in his Letter to Paulinus, “The good Lord frequently does not grant what we wish, in order to bestow what we should prefer.”

Then he gives the reason for the Lord’s response when he says, for my power is made perfect in weakness [infirmity]. This is a remarkable expression: virtue is made perfect in weakness; fire grows in water. This can be understood in two ways: materially and by way of occasion.

If taken materially, the sense is this: weakness is the material on which to exercise virtue.

1. First, humility, as stated above.
2. Second, patience: The testing of your faith produces steadfastness (James 1:3).
3. Third, temperance, because hunger is weakened by infirmity, and a person is made temperate.

Then the Apostle mentions the effect of this answer from the Lord, saying, I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. He mentions two effects. The first is glorying. Hence he says that because power is made perfect in weakness, I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses—that is, those given to me for my benefit. He does this because it joins him closer to Christ: But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 6:14); But he that is glorified in poverty, how much more in wealth? (Sirach 10:34, Vulgate). The reason he will glory gladly is that the power of Christ may rest upon me [dwell in me]—that is, that through weakness the grace of Christ may dwell and be made perfect in him: He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might he increases strength (Isaiah 40:29).

The other effect is joy. Hence, he says, For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses. In this regard, he does two things. First, he mentions the effect of joy; second, he assigns the reason for it (verse 10b).

He mentions the effect of joy and the source of that joy. He says, therefore, that because the power of Christ dwells in him in all tribulations, I am content—that is, “I am greatly pleased and take joy in the weaknesses I mentioned.” As it is written, Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials (James 1:2). The weaknesses in which he rejoices abundantly on account of Christ’s grace are then listed.

• First are those that come from an internal cause, namely, his infirmities; hence he says, in my weaknesses. As the Psalm says, Their infirmities were multiplied: afterwards they made haste (Psalms 16:5, Vulgate), namely, toward grace.
• Second are those that come from an external cause.
  • These relate first to words, when he says, in insults: Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name (Acts 15:4).
  • Then they relate to deeds, which concern either a lack of good things, when he says, in hardships—that is, in the lack of necessary things and in the poverty by which he was pressed (Contribute to the needs of the saints, Romans 12:13); or the experience of inflicted evils. These can be external things, as when he says, in bodily persecutions (Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, Matthew 5:10), which we experience from place to place and everywhere; or internal things, as when he says, in calamities—that is, in anxieties of the soul (I am straitened on every side,Daniel 13:22, Vulgate).

He assigns the reason for this joy when he says, for when I am weak, then I am strong. That is, when as a result of what is in me or as a result of persecutions I fall into any of the aforementioned situations, God’s help is applied to me to strengthen me: Your consolations cheer my soul (Psalms 94:19); Let the weak say, ‘I am strong’ (Joel 3:10, Vulgate); Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day (2 Corinthians 4:16). And in Exodus 1:12, it says that the more the Israelites were oppressed, the more they multiplied.

Having commended himself, the Apostle now asks for pardon for what he has said, showing that he was compelled to say these things which pertain to his glory. First, he lays the blame for his boasting on the Corinthians; second, he explains and clarifies this (verse 11b).

Therefore, he first says, "I confess that in all these commendations I have been a fool," meaning, "it seems to you that I have acted like a fool." But this was not done of my own accord or willingly. Rather, I was compelled, and it was your fault because you forced me to it—that is, you gave me the occasion. For people often compel their leaders to do things that seem unwise, although considering the time and place, they were done wisely.

Then he explains what he had said in a general way—that they were the cause of his self-commendation—when he says, for I ought to have been commended by you. Here he says that they were the cause of his self-commendation: first, by neglecting the good they should have done, through which he elaborates on their ingratitude; and second, by committing evil, through which he condemns their malice (verse 20). Regarding the first point, he does two things. First, he reminds them of what they should have done by showing the reason (verse 11c); second, he rejects their excuse (verse 13).

He says, therefore, "Yes, you compelled me, because you should have done what I have done." Thus, he says, for I ought to have been commended by you. You failed to do this when it was necessary—that is, when the false apostles, by belittling me and promoting themselves, devalued the doctrine and gospel of Christ that I delivered. Therefore, because you did not commend me, I undertook to commend myself so that the faith of Christ would not die among you.

But this conflicts with his earlier statement (2 Corinthians 3:1): Do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? So why would he wish to be commended by them? I answer that the Apostle did not need commendations for his own sake, but for the sake of others—specifically, so that by his self-commendation, his doctrine would be held in greater authority and the false apostles would be refuted.

But because they could say, "We did not commend you because there is nothing commendable about you," the Apostle proves to them that they had good reason to commend him. He does this when he says, For I am not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, thus showing that there was much in him that was commendable. He shows this first, concerning the good things he did in the past, and second, concerning the good things he intends to do (verse 14). He addresses the first point by speaking first, in general, about all the churches, and second, in particular, about what he did among them (verse 11d). Third, he refutes a potential objection (verse 13).

He says, therefore, "I deserved to be commended by you, because there are many things in me worthy of commendation, for I am not at all inferior to them"—namely, Peter, James, and John, who are the "superlative apostles," that is, those who seem to some to be worthier apostles than I. For the false apostles claimed that they had been taught by Peter and John, who had been taught by Christ, and that Peter and John observed the ceremonies of the Law. Therefore, they argued, the Corinthians should also observe them. But because I have done just as much among you—in preaching, converting believers, performing miracles, and undertaking labors—and in fact have done more, because I worked harder than any of them (1 Corinthians 15:10), for that reason I am more to be commended.

Alternatively, they were called "superlative apostles" (that is, Peter, James, and John) because they were the first ones converted to Christ, whereas Paul says, Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (1 Corinthians 15:8). If it is taken in this sense, even then I have done nothing less than they did, because in the short time after I was converted, I labored more.

But even granting that I did nothing in the other churches for which I might be commended, I have nevertheless done many special things among you, and for these you could have commended me. Thus he says, even though I am nothing—that is, granting that I did nothing in comparison to them—nevertheless, the effect of my power is present among you.

This is evident in three ways:

1. First, regarding my preaching, by which you were converted to the faith, making me your apostle. Indeed, the signs of a true apostle—that is, of my preaching—were performed among you by God, inasmuch as by believing, you were converted: You are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:2); For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15).
2. Second, regarding my manner of life, through which faith is strengthened. For when a person's life agrees with their doctrine, the doctrine has greater authority, and the virtue of the preacher is more apparent through patience: The learning of a man is known by patience (Proverbs 19:11, Vulgate). Therefore, he says, in all patience.
3. Third, regarding the working of miracles. Thus he says, with signs and wonders and mighty works. As it is written: And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it (Mark 16:20).

These three things are distinct. "Power" (Latin: virtus) is common to all miracles, for power is the full extent of an ability. Therefore, something is called a "mighty work" (virtuosum) because it proceeds from great power (virtute). Because miracles come from great power—namely, divine power—they are called "powers" (virtutes). A "sign," however, refers to a lesser miracle, and a "wonder" to a greater one. Alternatively, he says "signs" for miracles related to the present and "wonders" for miracles concerning the future. Or, "signs and wonders" refer to miracles performed contrary to nature, such as giving sight to the blind or raising the dead. But "mighty works" are things done in accordance with nature, yet not in the way nature performs them. An example is a sick person being healed immediately when hands are placed on him, whereas nature produces the same effect gradually. Alternatively, "mighty works" could mean virtues of the mind, such as chastity and so on.

Then he refutes a potential objection when he says, For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches? The Corinthians could have answered, "It is true that you have done many good and great things, but others have done more and greater things than you. Therefore, we are not willing to commend you over them or in comparison with them." But he refutes this by saying, For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches?—that is, what have the other churches of Christ obtained through him in spiritual matters that you have not? He implies the answer is "nothing," because just as the other apostles preached the faith, so did Paul; just as they performed signs and wonders, so did he.

In fact, not only did you receive nothing less, but you received even more. This is because the other apostles lived on the support of those to whom they preached, but the Apostle did not. He took nothing from the Corinthians, and so he says, except that I myself did not burden you by taking what was yours. It is as if he is saying, "You received nothing less, unless perhaps you consider it a lesser thing that I have not taken anything from you—which is actually a greater thing." He supports this with other scriptures: You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me (Acts 20:34); With toil and labor we worked night and day (2 Thessalonians 3:8); Who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe (Isaiah 33:15). But if you consider this an injury—namely, that I refused to take anything from you because (as you might wrongly think) I did not love you—and it seems to you that I have done wrong, then forgive me. Thus, he says with irony, forgive me this wrong! In a similar way, it says in Ephesians 4:32: Forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Here, the Apostle shows that he is worthy of commendation for the good things he intends to do. He does three things:

1. He states his resolution concerning the future good he intends to do.
2. He gives the reason for this resolution (verse 14c).
3. He applies a simile to his reason (verse 14d).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that sometimes people refuse a gift at one time so they can receive a larger one more boldly at a later time. So that the Corinthians would not suppose something like this about the Apostle—namely, that he refused to take anything from them the first time so that he could receive more the second time—he says that he not only did this in the past but is also prepared to do the same in the future. This is why he says, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden."

It is as if he is saying: Not even then will I burden you by taking what is yours. As Scripture says, So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way (2 Corinthians 11:9), and, I hold fast my righteousness, and will not let it go (Job 27:6).

Paul says he is "ready to come" for a third time, not that he "is coming" for a third time, because although he was prepared to go to them three times, he only went twice. He was prepared to go the first time, and he went, and they were converted. He was ready a second time but was prevented on account of their sin, which is what he apologized for at the beginning of this letter. Now he was ready to go a third time, and he went. Therefore, he went twice but was ready to go three times.

Next, Paul gives the reason for this good resolution when he says, "for I seek not what is yours but you." The reasoning is this: it is clear that an artisan plans his work according to the goal he has in mind. When preachers preach, some intend to gain revenue and temporal goods, and consequently, they arrange and direct all their preaching toward this end. Others intend the salvation of souls, and as a result, they arrange their preaching in whatever way they consider most effective for that salvation.

Therefore, because the Apostle in his preaching aimed at the salvation of the Corinthians—and he saw that it was beneficial to take no payment from them, both to shame the false apostles and because the Corinthians themselves were covetous—he refused to take any. This is why he gives this reason: I will not burden you by taking anything, because through my preaching I do not seek what is yours, but you. Your salvation is what I aim to secure: Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit (Philippians 4:17).

This is why the Lord said to the apostles, I will make you fishers of men (Matthew 4:19), not of money. This is also prefigured in Genesis 47, where we read that Joseph brought the Egyptians into the service of the king, because a good preacher should be focused on converting believers to the service of Christ.

Paul applies a simile to this reasoning when he says, "for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children." In this, he does three things:

1. He presents the simile.
2. He applies it (verse 15).
3. He criticizes their ingratitude (verse 15b).

Paul says, therefore, "I do not seek what is yours," and this is made clear by a simile. We observe that natural parents should save for their children, because children ought not to save for their parents, but parents for their children. Therefore, since I am your spiritual father and you are my children, I do not want you to provide for me, but for me to provide for you.

But a question arises here concerning natural parents, for it says in Exodus 20:12, Honor your father and your mother, which includes providing for their needs. Therefore, are children bound to save for their parents? I answer that this precept requires children to provide for and help their parents in their time of need, but not to accumulate and save wealth for them. Saving and accumulating wealth concerns the future.

In the natural order, children succeed their parents, not the other way around, except in some tragic cases. Therefore, the love of parents naturally leads them to save for their children. It is in this sense that the Apostle speaks. In Exodus 20, however, the Lord is speaking about helping parents in a time of necessity.

Another question arises from the statement that children should not save for their parents, but parents for their children. Since prelates are our spiritual fathers, does it seem that princes and others do wrong when they give their wealth to prelates? I answer that they gave wealth to prelates not for the prelates themselves, but for the poor. This is what the Lord teaches: Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal (Matthew 6:20). Therefore, wealth is given to prelates to be distributors to the poor.

Then Paul applies the simile, in which he proposed two things. The first is that children should not save for their parents, which is now clear. The second is that parents should save for and give to their children. Regarding this, he says that because he is their father, he is ready to give to them. This is what he means when he says, "I will most gladly spend" good things on you—not only spiritual goods, by preaching and setting an example, but even temporal goods. He did this, since he preached to them and served them with the financial support of other churches.

Every prelate should provide these three things to his subjects. This is why the Lord said to Peter three times, Feed my sheep (John 21:17)—that is, feed them by word, feed them by example, and feed them by temporal support.

Not only will I give those things to you, he says, but I am ready to die for your salvation. This is why he adds, "and be spent for your souls." As Scripture says, Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13); He laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16); and, The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11).

Then Paul criticizes their ingratitude when he asks, If I love you the more, am I to be loved the less? It is as if he is saying: I will gladly be spent for you, even though you are ungrateful, because although I love you more, I am loved less. This comparison can be explained in two ways.

First, it can be read this way: although I love you more than the other apostles do, I am loved less by you than the false apostles are, whom you love more than me. Thus it is clear that I love you more than they do, because I seek only your salvation, while they seek only your possessions.

Alternatively, it can be read this way: although I love you more than I love the other churches, I am nevertheless loved less by you than by the other churches. As he says elsewhere, For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:8). That he loved the Corinthians more than the other churches is clear from the fact that he worked harder for them, for we love more that for which we labor more.

Then, when Paul says, "But granting that I myself did not burden you," he addresses a potential suspicion. In this section, he does three things:

1. He states the suspicion.
2. He refutes it (verse 17).
3. He gives the reason for the refutation (verse 19).

Their suspicion might be that the reason he did not take anything for himself was so that others could take more from them. Therefore, he says, "But granting"—that is, even if we grant that I myself, in my own person and with those who were with me, did not burden you by taking anything—that, as you believed, "I was crafty and took you in by deceit," meaning, that I took much more of your possessions through other people. But this is false, because he has done nothing by deceit: For our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile (1 Thessalonians 2:3). For he was an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile (John 1:47).

Paul then refutes this suspicion when he asks, Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? He does this first in a general way, and second, in a specific way. Generally, he argues that if he had wanted to take anything from you through others, he would have sent people who could acquire these things. But did he take advantage of them by using his messengers to extort their possessions? It is as if he is saying: No. We have taken advantage of no one (2 Corinthians 7:2); That no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

He refutes their suspicion in a specific way when he says, "I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him." It is as if he is saying: None of those whom I sent to you took advantage of you. For I sent Titus to you with earnest requests. This is what he means: "I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him"—namely, Barnabas or Luke. As it says, With him—namely Titus—we are sending the brother—namely one of those mentioned—who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel (2 Corinthians 8:18). But did Titus take advantage of you? It is as if he is saying: No. But thanks be to God who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus (2 Corinthians 8:16).

He proves that Titus did not take advantage of them by showing that Titus was of the same mind as the Apostle, and he mentions two points of similarity. First, in their spirit; this is why he asks, Did we not act in the same spirit?—that is, did we not have the same will? Or, were we not inspired by the same Spirit to act well and correctly? As it is written, Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, ‘I believed, and so I spoke,’ we too believe, and so we speak (2 Corinthians 4:13).

Second, he points to their work; this is why he asks, Did we not take the same steps?—that is, were we not committed to the same works? This means walking in the steps of Christ, for Paul walks in the steps of Christ: I have kept his way—namely, Christ’s—and have not turned aside (Job 23:11). And, Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:21). And Titus follows Paul's steps: Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). Therefore, if Titus agrees with Paul in will and in work, and Paul has not taken advantage of them and does not intend to, the conclusion is clear. That he did not take advantage of them is clear from Matthew 7:16: By their fruits you shall know them.

Then he adds the reason that refutes their opinion. First, he states their opinion; second, he refutes it (verse 19). Their opinion was that the Apostle, as someone guilty and at fault, was writing this entire letter to defend himself, and that his words were not true but were merely invented for his own justification. Therefore, he states their opinion, saying, Have you been thinking all along—that is, from the beginning of this letter—that we have been defending ourselves before you? This implies they thought the words of this letter were not true but were fabricated as an excuse.

But Paul refutes this. A person who makes excuses in that way has two characteristics: one is that he uses fabrications, not true words; the other is that he is unwilling to suffer the loss of reputation and glory. It is especially because of the loss of reputation that such people make excuses. But neither of these is true of the Apostle. Therefore, their opinion is false.

That neither of these is true of Paul is clear, because he does not use false words. He proves this first by God’s testimony, because it is in the sight of God that they are speaking. It is as if he is saying: God is my witness that I speak the truth. Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven (Job 16:19). Second, he proves it by the testimony of Christ, because they have been speaking in Christ—that is, through Christ, in whom there is no falsehood: But as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ (2 Corinthians 2:17).

Furthermore, they do not seek their own glory or fear the loss of reputation, because everything Paul has said about his revelations and tribulations, he does or says for their upbuilding—namely, so that they may continue in virtue and expel the false apostles. As it is written, Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding (Romans 14:19), and, Let all things be done for edification (1 Corinthians 14:26). For, This voice has come for your sake, not for mine (John 12:30).