Thomas Aquinas Commentary 2 Corinthians 12:1-2

"I must needs glory, though it is not expedient; but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven." — 2 Corinthians 12:1-2 (ASV)

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.