Article 2 — Whether Paul saw God through his essence when he was enraptured

Second, it is asked whether Paul did see God through his essence when he was enraptured? (Parallel texts: ST I.12.11, ad 2; II-II.174.3; II-II.175.3; In IV Sent., d. 49, q. 2, a. 7, ad 5; Commentary on 2 Corinthians, ch. 12, lect. 1–2.)

Obj. 1: It seems that he did not, for the gloss on Ephesians 4:18, having their understanding darkened, says: everyone who understands is enlightened with an inner light. (Peter Lombard, Commentary on Ephesians, at Ephesians 4:18 (PL 192:203C).) Therefore, if the understanding is raised up to see God, it must be enlightened by some light proportionate to this kind of sight. But the only such light is the light of glory, of which Psalm 36:9 says: in your light we shall see light. (Vulgate: Psalm 35:10.) Therefore, God can be seen through his essence only by an intellect enjoying beatitude. And, since Paul was not glorified when he was enraptured, he could not see God through his essence.

Obj. 2: It was said that in that state Paul did enjoy beatitude.

On the contrary, perpetuity is of the nature of beatitude, as Augustine says. (Cf. Augustine, City of God, bk. 11, cc. 2 and 11, and bk. 14, ch. 25 (PL 41:327 and 433).) But that state did not remain in Paul forever. Therefore, he did not enjoy beatitude in that state.

Obj. 3: From the glory in the soul glory overflows into the body. But Paul’s body was not glorified. Therefore, neither was his mind enlightened by the light of glory. And, so, he did not see God through his essence.

Obj. 4: It was said that by seeing God through his essence in that state he was made blessed, not without qualification, but only in a qualified way.

On the contrary, all that is needed for one to be blessed in all respects is the act of glory and the gift of glory, which is the principle of that act. Thus, Peter’s body would have been glorified if, along with being held up on the water, (Cf. Matt. 14:29.) he had also had within him agility, which is the principle of this act. But splendor, the principle of the vision of God, which is the act of glory, is the gift of glory. Therefore, if Paul’s mind saw God through his essence and was enlightened by the light which is the source of this vision, he was glorified without qualification.

Obj. 5: While he was enraptured, Paul had faith and hope. But these are incompatible with the vision of God through his essence, for faith concerns things that appear not, as is said in Hebrews 11:1, and: what a man sees, why does he hope for? as is said in Romans 8:24. Therefore, he did not see God through his essence.

Obj. 6: In heaven, charity is not a principle of merit. But in his rapture Paul was capable of meriting, since his soul had not yet been separated from the corruptible body, as Augustine says. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 12, ch. 5 (PL 34:458).) Therefore, he did not have the charity proper to heaven. But where there is the vision proper to heaven, which is perfect, there also is the charity proper to heaven, which is perfect, for one loves God to the extent that he knows about God. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel, bk. 2, homily 9, para. 10 (PL 76:1048C); Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 26, ch. 12.) Therefore, Paul did not see God through his essence.

Obj. 7: The divine essence cannot be seen without joy, as Augustine says. (Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 1, ch. 10 (PL 42:834).) Therefore, if Paul saw God through his essence, he took delight in that sight. Accordingly, he did not wish to be separated from it, nor, on the other hand, did God cut him off from it against his wishes. For, since God is most generous, he does not on his part withdraw his gifts. Therefore, Paul would never have been cut off from that state. But he was cut off. Therefore, he did not see God through his essence.

Obj. 8: No one who has a good because of merit loses it without sin. Therefore, since to see God through his essence is a good which one has because of merit, no one who sees God through his essence can be cut off from this sight unless he should happen to sin. But this cannot be said of Paul, who says in Romans 8:38–39: for I am sure that neither death, nor life . . . shall . . . separate us. We conclude as before.

Obj. 9: When Paul is said to be enraptured, there is also question of the difference between his rapture and the deep sleep of Adam (Cf. Genesis 2:21.) and the rapture of John the Evangelist, in which he says he was in the spirit (Rev 1:10), and the ecstasy of mind which Peter had (Acts 11:5).

On the contrary, from what Augustine says (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 12, ch. 28 (PL 34:478); Epistulae, letter 147, “To Paulina” (De videndo Deum), ch. 13 (PL 33:610).) and from the Gloss, (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Cor 12:4, 6.447; Peter Lombard, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, at 2 Cor 12:4 (192:83A).) we see clearly that Paul saw God through his essence when he was enraptured.

I answer that concerning this, some (Alexander of Hales, Questiones antequam esset Frater, ed. V. Doucet, in Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 19–21, 3 (Quaracchi [Florence]: The College of St. Bonaventure, 1960), q. 48, m. 5, n. 32; Bonaventure, q. "On Rapture": Respondeo dicendum quod haec vision nec simpliciter fuit viatoris nec simpliciter comprehensoris sed mediastina tum a parte videntis tum a parte modi;* See also William of Auxerre, Summa aurea, bk. 3, tract. 11, q. 2.)* have said that Paul, when he was enraptured, did not see God through his essence, but with a vision midway between the vision had in this life and the vision had in heaven. We can take this intermediate vision to mean the kind of vision which is natural to an angel, such that he would see God, not, indeed, through his essence with natural knowledge, but through intelligible species, in so far as he considers his own essence, which is an intelligible likeness of the uncreated essence, according to the saying of The Book of Causes (Book of Causes, prop. 8 [7].) that an intelligence knows what is above it in so far as it is caused by it. According to this, Paul, when enraptured, is conceived of as having seen God through the refulgence of some intelligible light in his mind. However, the knowledge of this life, which is through the mirror and obscurity of sensible creatures, is natural to man. And the knowledge of heaven, by which we see God through his essence, is natural only to God.

But this opinion is contrary to what Augustine says, for he states expressly that, when Paul was enraptured, he saw God through his essence. Nor is it likely that a minister of God to the Jews of the Old Testament (Cf. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Ps 89:1 (PL 37:1141).) would see God through his essence, as appears from Numbers 12:8: plainly and not by riddles and figures does he see the Lord, and that this would not be granted to the minister of the New Testament, the teacher of the gentiles. (Cf. 1 Tim 2:7.) This is especially true since the Apostle himself argues in this way: for if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more the ministration of justice abounds in glory (2 Cor 3:9). Still, he did not have beatitude without qualification, but only in some respects, although his mind was enlightened with supernatural light to enable it to see God. This will become clear from the example of physical light. For, in some things, we find the light from the sun as an abiding form, as though it had become connatural to them, as in the stars, rubies, and things of this sort. But, in other things, the light from the sun is received as a passing impression, as light in the air. For the light does not become a form abiding in the air, as though connatural to it, but passes when the sun leaves. In like fashion, also, the light of glory is infused into the mind in two ways. In one, it follows the mode of a form which becomes connatural and abiding. This makes the mind blessed without qualification, and is the manner in which it is infused in the blessed in heaven. In the other way, the mind receives the light of glory as a passing impression. It was in this way that Paul’s mind was enlightened with the light of glory when he was enraptured. The very name shows that this took place quickly (raptim) and in passing. Hence, he was not glorified without qualification, nor did he have the gift of glory, since that splendor did not become a property in him. For this reason it did not flow down from the soul to the body, nor did he remain in this state permanently.

Reply Obj. 1–4: The response to the first four objections is clear from what has been said.

Reply Obj. 5: When full vision comes, faith leaves. Hence, in so far as Paul had the vision of God through his essence, he did not have faith. Now, he had the vision of God through his essence by way of act, not according to the habit of glory. Consequently, he had faith not in act but habitually, and hope likewise.

Reply Obj. 6: Although Paul was then in a state in which he could merit, he did not actually merit, for, just as he had the act of vision possessed by those in heaven, so he had the act of charity possessed by those in heaven. Nevertheless, some (We have not found this citation.) say that, although he had the vision of those in heaven, he did not have the act of charity of those in heaven. For, although his understanding was rapt, his affections were not. But this is clearly contrary to what the Gloss on he was caught up into paradise (2 Cor 12:4), says: that is, into that tranquility which those who are in the heavenly Jerusalem enjoy. (Peter Lombard, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, at 2 Cor 12:4 (PL 192:83A); Glossa interlinearis, at 2 Cor 12:4 (in Glossa ordinaria 6.447).) But enjoyment takes place through love.

Reply Obj. 7: That the vision did not remain in Paul was due to the nature of the light which illumined his mind, as is clear from what has been said.

Reply Obj. 8: Although in the blessed the vision of God is due to merit, at that time it was not given to Paul as a reward of merit. Hence, the reasoning does not follow.

However, it should be noted that these last two objections bring no better argument against the fact that Paul saw God through his essence than against the fact that he saw him in any way which surpassed the common manner of sight.

Reply Obj. 9: In the Scriptures, transport of mind, ecstasy, and rapture are all used in the same sense and indicate some raising up of the mind from sensible things outside of us toward which we naturally turn our attention, to things which are above man. This takes place in two ways. For, at times, this transport from things outside is taken to refer to attention only, as when someone makes use of the external senses and things about him, but his whole attention is engaged in contemplating and loving things divine. Such is the state of anyone who contemplates and loves things divine in transport of the mind, whether ecstasy or rapture. For this reason Dionysius says: divine love brings about ecstasy. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4, para. 13 (PG 3:712A).) And Gregory, speaking of contemplation, says: one who is rapt in order that he may understand the things within closes his eyes to visible things. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 30, ch. 16 (PL 76:554B).) Ecstasy or rapture or transport of the mind take place in another way, and the names are more generally used in this sense, when one is also deprived of the use of his senses and sensible things in order to see certain things supernaturally. Now, a thing is seen supernaturally when it is seen beyond sense, understanding, and imagination, as we said in the question "On prophecy." (Above: q. 12, a. 9.)

Therefore, Augustine distinguishes two kinds of rapture. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 12, ch. 26 (PL 34:476).) There is one in which the mind is carried out of the senses to the vision in the imagination. This is what happened to Peter and to John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse, as Augustine says. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 12, ch. 2 (PL 34:455).) There is another in which the mind is at once transported out of the senses and out of the imagination to an intellectual vision. This happens in two ways. In one, the intellect understands God through certain intelligible communications, and this is proper to angels. Adam’s ecstasy was of this sort, as the Gloss on Genesis 2:21 says: (Glossa ordinaria, at Genesis 2:21, 1.80–81 ; from Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 9, ch. 19 (PL 34:408); Alexander of Hales, Gloss on the Book of Sentences, d. 29, n. 4, additio c.) The correct interpretation of this ecstasy is that it was given so that Adam’s mind might become a member of the heavenly court and, entering into the sanctuary of God, might understand the last things. In the other way, the understanding sees God through his essence. It was for this that Paul was enraptured, as we have said.