Chapter 3

Home‎ > ‎2 Corinthians‎ > ‎St. Thomas Aquinas on 2 Corinthians‎ > ‎Chapter 1‎ > ‎Chapter 2‎ > ‎

> ‎Chapter 4‎ > ‎Chapter 5‎ > ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎Chapter 7‎ > ‎Chapter 8‎ > ‎Chapter 9‎ > ‎Chapter 10‎ > ‎Chapter 11‎ > ‎Chapter 12‎ > ‎Chapter 13‎ > ‎

2 Cor. 3:1-5

1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God.

78. – After presenting his excuse, by which he won the good will of his hearers, the Apostle continues toward his main intention, namely, to treat about the ministers of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he commends the dignity of the good ministers; secondly, he expands on the guilt of the evil ministers (chap. 10ff.). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the ministry of the New Testament; secondly, he commends the exercise of this ministry in others by exhorting them to this (chap. 6). In regard to the first he commends the ministry of the New Testament from three aspects: first, in this chapter, from its dignity; secondly, from its exercise (chap. 4); thirdly, from its reward (chap. 5). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he removes an objection; secondly, he commends the ministers of the New Testament (v. 6). In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle intended to commend the ministers of the New Testament, of which he is one. Therefore, lest the Corinthians object that in doing this he wishes to commend himself, he at once removes this, saying, Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Here he does two things: he first raises the question and then he answers it.

79. –The question is this: I say that we do not adulterate the Word of God as the false apostles do, but we speak with sincerity as from God. But in saying this, are we beginning to commend ourselves again?, i.e., are we saying this because we want to procure our glory and not that of God? And he says, again, because in the first epistle he had commended himself enough, when he said (3:10): “Like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation.” Therefore, we are not saying this to seek our own glory, but God’s: “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips” (Prov. 27:2).

80. – He answers this when he says, Or do we need? Here he shows that he is not happy to commend himself. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that he does not need man’s commendation; secondly, that he does not require it of them (v. 4). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that he does not need their commendation; secondly, he assigns the cause of this (v. 2).

81. – He says, therefore: I say that we do not begin to commend ourselves, because we do not need commendation. And this is what he says: Do we, the true ministers, need as some do, namely the false apostles, letters of recommendation, i.e., praise, to you by others, or from you to others? But on the other hand, he says in Colossians (4:10): “Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, greets you.” Even papal legates always carry letters of recommendation. Therefore it is not an evil. I answer that to accept such letters from famous persons, who are commended and honored by reason of them alone, until they become known by their good works, is not evil: that is what papal legates do. But the Apostle was already so well known and recommended among them by his works, that he did not need letters of recommendation.

82. – Therefore he at once gives the reason for this, saying, you yourselves are our letter of recommendation; as if to say: I have a good letter; I do not need others. In regard to this, he does two things: first, he shows what that letter is which he has; secondly, he explains this (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first he shows what that letter is; secondly, he shows that it is sufficient for commending him (v. 3b). He says, therefore, you are our letter, i.e., the letter through which our dignity is made manifest, by which we are commended, so that we do not need other letters: “You are our glory” (1 Th. 2:20); “My little children, with whom I am again in travail, until Christ be formed in you” (Gal. 4:19). But is this letter sufficient? Yes, because it is written on your hearts. Here he touches on two things causing the sufficiency of such letters. One is that it should be understood and known by the one for whom it is sent; the other that he still seeks, and not that he knows himself to have it. As to this he says, written on our hearts, because we always have you in mind, having a special care for you: “I hold you in my heart” (Phil. 1:7). The other is that he to whom it is sent may read and know it; hence, he says, to be known and read by all men. To be known, I say, because you have been instructed and converted by us; but it is read, because by our example even others imitate you: “Write the vision; make it plain upon tablets, so he may run who reads it” (Hab. 2:2).

83. – Then he explains how this letter is known, saying, you show that you are a letter from Christ, and in regard to this he does three things. First, he explains whose letter it is; secondly, how it was written; thirdly, on what. He shows whose it is when he says, from Christ. Hence, he says, you show that you are a letter from Christ, i.e., informed and led by Christ, principally and authoritatively: “For you have one teacher” (Matt. 23:8), but by us secondarily and instrumentally. Hence he adds, delivered by us: “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ” (1 Cor. 4:1); “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed” (1 Cor. 3:5) He shows how it was written, not with ink, i.e., not mixed with errors, as the letters of the false apostle; not changeable and imperfect as the Old Law, which led no one to perfection (cf. Heb. 7:19); for black ink is that by which error is understood, and delible by which changeableness is understood. It is written not with ink, I say, but with the Spirit of the living God, i.e., by the Holy Spirit, by whom you live and by whose teaching you have been instructed: “In whom you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). He suggests where it is written, when he says, not on tablets of stone, as the Old Law, to exclude hardness; as if to say: not in the stony hearts of the hard-hearted, as the Jews: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit” (Ac. 7:51); but on tablets of human hearts, i.e., hearts opened by charity, and human, i.e., made receptive as a result of filling and understanding: “I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ez. 36:26).

84. – Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Above, the Apostle excused himself, that he was not seeking his own glory, because he did not need it; here he proves that he is not seeking his own glory. Indeed, everything good he does he attributes not to himself but to God. In regard to this he does two things: first, he attributes all the good he has and does to God; secondly, he gives the reason for this.

85. – He says, therefore: I say that we do not need letters of recommendation and that you are our letter ministered by us. Nor do we seek our glory, but Christ’s. Such is the confidence, i.e. to say such things, that we have through Christ toward God, i.e., we refer it to God. Or I have such confidence in God, by whose power I say these things, because he works in me, and the confidence we have through Christ, through whom we have access to the Father, as it says in Romans (5:2), who unites us to God: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord” (Jer. 17:7). And I have this confidence because I am united to God through Christ: “I will act confidently in him” (Ps. 11:6, Vulgate).

86. – But the cause of this confidence is that whatever I do, I attribute to the very beginning of the work to God. Therefore, he says, not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, much less say and accomplish. For in the pursuit of any work there is first an assent, which is done by thinking, then discussion by word, and finally accomplishment by work. Hence if a person does not have the thinking from himself but from God, there is no doubt that not only the completion of a good work is from God, but even the very beginning: “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). This is contrary to the Pelagians, who say that the beginning of a good work is from us, but its completion is from God: “O Lord, you have wrought for us all our works” (Is. 26:12). But lest this seem to take away free will, he says, of ourselves, i.e., on our part, and commends divine grace when he says, as coming from us, i.e., as though it came from us, rather than God.

87. – The Philosopher also teaches that a man can never do any good through his free will without God’s help. The reason is that in the things we do it is necessary to seek that for which we do it. But there can be no infinite process, for we must come to something which is first, e.g., to counsel. Thus, therefore, I do good, because there is in me the counsel to do so, and this is from God. Hence, he says that the counsel of something good is from something above man, moving him to act well; and this is God, who moves men and all things that act to their actions; but men are moved in one way, and other things in another. For since motion of this kind is something received into the thing moved, it is necessary that this be done according to the mode of its nature, i.e., of the thing moved. And therefore he moves all things according to their natures. Therefore, those things whose nature is to have free will and have dominion over their actions, he moves in such a way that they act freely, as rational and intellectual creatures. But others not freely, but according to the mode of their nature. But although we are not sufficient to think anything of ourselves as coming from ourselves, yet we have a certain sufficiency, namely that by which we are able to will the good, and to begin to believe, and this is from God: “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7).

3-2

2 Cor. 3:6-11

6 He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, 8 will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? 9 For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. 11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor.

88. – Having commended the ministry of the New Testament, the Apostle then commends its ministers. First, he stipulates two things, which correspond to the above words. For he had mentioned a gift received from God when he said, our competence is from God, and the confidence born of this gift when he said, such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. First, therefore, he determines the things pertaining to the gift received; secondly, those pertaining to the confidence born of it (v. 12). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he discloses the gift received from God, namely, the ministry of the New Testament; secondly, he describes the New Testament (v. 6b); thirdly, from the dignity of the New Testament he shows the dignity of its ministers (v. 9).

89. – He says, therefore: I say that our sufficiency is from God who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant: “Men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God” (Is. 61:6). And in this we hold the place of angels: “Who make angels your messengers, fire and flame your ministers” (Ps. 104:4). But he not only made us ministers, but fit ones. For God gives to each being the things through which it can attain to the perfection of its nature. Hence, because God constituted ministers of the New Testament, he made them fit to exercise this office, unless he was impeded on the part of the receivers: “Who is sufficient for these things” (2 Cor. 2:16), namely, as are the Apostles instituted by God.

90. – He describes what this New Testament is when he continues, not in a written code but in the Spirit. He describes it in regard to two things, namely, as to that in which it consists and as to its cause for which it has been given: for the written code kills. In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle speaks profoundly, for it is stated in Jeremiah (31:31): “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers”; and later on (v. 33): “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people.” The Old Testament, therefore, is written in a book, later to be sprinkled with blood, as it says in Hebrews (9:19): “He took the blood of calves and goats and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying: ‘This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.’” So it is clear that the Old Law is a covenant of words, but the New Covenant is a covenant of the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts [Et sic patet, quod vetus lex est testamentum litterae. Sed Novum Testamentum est testamentum Spiritus Sancti, quo charitas Dei diffunditur in cordis nostris], as it says in Rom. 5:5. Consequently, when the Holy Spirit produces charity in us, which is the fulness of the Law, it is a New Covenant, not in a written code, i.e., not written down, but in the Spirit, i.e., through the Spirit who gives life: “The law of the Spirit of life” (Rom. 8:2), i.e., life-giving.

91. – The reason why the New Testament was given by the Spirit is indicated when he says, for the written code kills, not as a cause but as an occasion. For the written Law only gives knowledge of sin: “For through the Law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). But as a result of merely knowing sin, two things follow. For the Law, although sin is known by it, does not repress concupiscence, but is the occasion of increasing it, inasmuch as concupiscence is enkindled the more by something forbidden. Hence such knowledge kills, when the cause of concupiscence has not yet been destroyed. As a result it adds to the sin. For it is more grievous to sin against the written and natural law than against the natural law only: “But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of concupiscence” (Rom. 7:8). But although it is the occasion of killing inasmuch as it increases concupiscence and increases the sin, the Law is not evil, because at least it forbids evil; nevertheless, it is imperfect, inasmuch as it does not remove the cause. Therefore, the Law without the Spirit inwardly impressing the Law on the heart is the occasion of death; hence, it was necessary to give the Law of the Spirit, who gives life by producing charity in the heart: “It is the Spirit that gives life” (Jn. 6:63).

92. – From these, therefore, he shows the dignity of his ministry. He does two things in this regard. First, he shows that the ministry of the New Testament is preferred to the Old; secondly, that it is not only preferred, but that in comparison to the Old Testament, the latter has, as it were, nothing of glory (v. 10). In regard to the first, he does two things. First, he shows that the ministry of the New Testament is preferred to the Old; secondly, he assigns the reason for this (v. 9).

93. – In regard to the first, it should be noted that the Apostle argues from a statement in Exodus (34:24), where our text says that Moses had his face horned, so that the people of Israel could not come near. Another version says that his face shone, and this is better. For it should not be supposed that he literally had horns, as some depict him, but he is described as horned because of the rays which seemed to be like horns. He argues from this in the following way: first, by a similarity and by arguing from the lesser. For it is obvious that if something less has glory, then much more something which is greater. But the Old Testament is less than the New: therefore, since the former was in glory, so that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face, it seems that the New is much more in glory.

94. – That the Old Testament is less than the New he proves in three ways. First, from its effect, because the former is a covenant of death, but the latter of life, as has been said. In regard to this he says, If the dispensation of death, i.e., the Old, which is the occasion of death; and this corresponds to what he said, namely, that the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. Secondly, as to the way it was delivered, for the Old was delivered written on stone tablets, but the New was impressed by the Spirit on human hearts. He suggests this when he says, carved in letters, i.e., perfectly formed, on stone, i.e., on tablets of stone. This corresponds to his statement, not in a written code but in the Spirit. Thirdly, as to perfection: for the glory of the Old Testament is without assurance, because the Law brought no one to perfection. But in the New there is glory with the hope of a better glory, i.e., eternal: “My salvation will be forever” (Is. 51:6). This is suggested when he says, fading as this was: “If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal. 5:2). He states the conclusion when he says, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater glory? which is plain.

95. – Then he assigns the reason for all these when he says, For if there was glory in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of justice must far exceed it in glory. This is his reasoning: Glory is owed more to justice than to condemnation, but the ministry of the New Testament is a ministry of justice, because it justifies by giving life within. The ministry of the Old Testament is a ministry of condemnation, as being its occasion: the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. Therefore, since the dispensation of condemnation, i.e., the ministry of the Old Testament, is the occasional cause of condemnation, as has been said, is in glory, which appeared on the face of Moses, it is obvious that much more abundant in glory, i.e., gives an abundance of glory to its ministers, is the dispensation of justice, i.e., of the New Testament, by which the Spirit is given through whom is given justice and the fulfillment of the virtues: “The wise shall possess glory” (Prov. 3:35).

96. – It is customary here to compare Moses and Paul; but if the Apostle’s words are considered carefully, this is not necessary, because ministries not persons are being compared.

97. – But because the false apostles could say that even though the ministry of the New Covenant is greater than that of the Old, it is not much greater. Therefore, it is good for us to continue in that ministry, which they did, because they observed the ceremonies of the Law along with the Gospel. Therefore the Apostle rejects this when he says, indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. In regard to this he does two things. First, he shows that the ministry of the New Testament exceeds that of the Old beyond all comparison. Secondly, he assigns the reason for this (v. 11).

98. – He says, therefore, I have said that the ministry of justice abounds in glory to such a degree that the glory of the Old Testament should not be called glorious, for what once had glory has come to have no glory at all by reason of the glory that surpasses it. This is explained in two ways. First, that that glory is nothing in comparison to that of the New Testament, because such glory was not conferred on all the ministers, but on Moses alone, and it did not shine on Moses entirely, but in part, i.e., on his face alone. Therefore, it has come to have no glory at all, i.e., should not be glorified because of the glory that surpasses it, i.e., in comparison to the excelling glory of the New Testament, which abounds in grace, so that men purified by it might not see the glory of a man but of God. It is explained in a second way by punctuating it thus: that which was glorious in this part has come to have no glory: as if to say, for in this part, i.e., in respect to this particular nature, that we are servants, has come to have no glory, i.e., that was not glorious which shone in the Old Testament: and this by reason of the glory that surpasses it, which is in the New, because it is the glory of God the Father.

99. – Then he assigns the cause of this when he says, For if what faded away came with glory, what is permanent must have much more glory. His reasoning is thus: that which was given to pass away is nothing in relation to that which is given to remain always. If, therefore, the Old Testament, which is rendered void, is done away with: “But when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away” (1 Cor. 13:10). For with glory the ministry of Moses came, at least with a particular glory. And it is obvious that the New Testament remains, because it is begun here and completed in heaven: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Lk. 21:33). It will be much more in eternal glory, in which it will be perfected; it will be, I say, for us who are its ministers.

3-3

2 Cor. 3:12-18

12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. 14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

100. – Having laid down what pertains to commending the gift received from God, he now lays down what pertains to commending the confidence born of that gift. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the confidence born of the gift; secondly, he compares the confidence in the Old and in the New Testament (v. 13).

101. – He says, therefore, Since we have such a hope, because of what has been said to us, namely, of seeing the glory of God: “In this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24), we are very bold [multa fiducia utimur], i.e., we confidently do the things which pertain to the use of this ministry, from which our hope grows: “The righteous are bold as a lion” (Prov. 28:1); “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord” (Jer. 17:7).

102. – Then as he preferred the one gift to the other, so he prefers the confidence [fiducia] of the New Testament to that of the Old (v. 13). In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions a fact about the Old Testament; secondly, he explains it (v. 13b).

103. – The fact he proposes is mentioned in Exodus (34:33), where it says that when he spoke to the people, Moses veiled his face, because the children of Israel could not look upon him because of the splendor of his face. Hence he says, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face. As if to say: I say that we are very bold, and such as did not happen to us as Moses did to them, namely, not revealing his face to the people, because the time to reveal the splendor of truth had not yet come. Therefore, we have confidence [fiduciam] without the veil.

104. – Then he explains what he had said about the veil, saying, which is made void, for that veil was the dimness of the figures, which was made void by Christ. In regard to this he does three things. First, he mentions the voiding of this veil; secondly, how this voiding still prevails among the Jews (v. 14); thirdly, how this has no place among the ministers of the New Testament (v. 18).

105. – He says, therefore, that Moses put a veil, namely, of the figure, over his face; this veil is made void, i.e., is taken away by Christ, namely, by fulfilling in truth what Moses delivered in figure, because all things happened to them in a figure. For thus Christ by his death removed the veil of the killing of the paschal lamb. Therefore, as soon as he gave up his spirit, the veil of the Temple was rent. Likewise by sending the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers so that they might understand spiritually what the Jews understood carnally. He removed the veil, when he opened their mind to understand the Scriptures (Lk. 24:45).

106. – What effect this voiding had on the Jews is shown (v. 14). In regard to this he does two things. First, he shows that it was not removed from them in the state of unbelief; secondly, he shows that it will be removed when they are converted (v. 16). In regard to the he does two things: first, he shows why this voiding has no place among the Jews; secondly, from this he shows that they still have the veil (v. 15).

107. – He says, therefore, that it is removed for those who believe, but not for the unbelieving Jews. The reason for this is that their minds were hardened, i.e., their reasoning power is dull and their senses weak and clouded, so that they cannot see the brightness of the divine light, i.e., of divine truth, without the veil of figures. The reason for this is that they close their eyes so as not to see, because the veil of the Temple was rent. Therefore, this is due to their sin of unbelief, and not to a weakness in the truth; because with the removal of the veil the truth is manifested very clearly to all who open the eyes of their mind through faith: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel” (Rom. 11:25); “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (Jn. 9:39). For this was foretold by Isaiah (6:10): “Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” And indeed their minds are so dulled to the truth that to this day they do not understand the truth manifested to us. But the same veil remains which was in the Old Testament before the veil of the Temple was rent, when they read the Old Testament, because they understand it no differently than before. For they still rely on figures, so as not to reveal the truth, i.e., not understand. Thus they still believe that the veil of God is not a figure, but the truth, which namely is lifted as to believers through Christ, i.e., in the faith of Christ. But it remains in them, because they do not believe that Christ has come.

108. – Then when he says, Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds, he shows how even among the Jews the veil remains, as to unbelievers, although it has been removed by Christ. In regard to this it should be noted that a veil is said to be put on something in two ways: either because it is put on the thing seen, so that it cannot be seen; or because it is put on the one seeing, so that he may not see. But the veil was put on the Jews of the Old Law in both ways. For their eyes have been blinded not to see the truth because of their hardness; and the Old Testament had not yet been fulfilled, because the truth had not yet come. As a sign of this the veil was on Moses’ face and not theirs. But with the coming of Christ the veil was removed from the face of Moses, i.e., from the Old Testament, because it was not fulfilled: but it has not been removed from their hearts. Hence, he says, to this day the veil remains. As if to say: the veil has been removed from the believers of the Old Testament, but still when Moses is read, i.e., when the Old Testament is explained to them: “For from early generations, Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues” (Ac. 15:21), the veil, i.e. blindness, lies over their hearts: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel” (Rom. 11:25).

109. – But when and how that veil shall be removed from them is shown when he says, but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. First he describes how to remove this veil; secondly, the reason for this (v. 17).

110. – He says, therefore, that this veil is still upon them; not that the Old Testament is veiled, but because their hearts are veiled. Therefore if it is to be removed, nothing remains but that they be converted. Hence, he says, but when a man turns, namely, some of them, to God through faith in Christ, the veil is removed by their conversion: “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God” (Is. 10:21); and this is also stated in Romans (9:27). And note that when he treated of blindness, he spoke in the plural, saying over their hearts; but when he speaks of conversion, he speaks in the singular, saying, but when a man turns, to show how easy evil is and how difficult the good, as though few will be converted.

111. – But the reason why they are converted and the veil removed in this manner is because God wills it. For they could claim that God put the veil on them and therefore it cannot be removed. But the Apostle shows that it cannot only be removed, but even that it is removed by him who is the Lord. Hence, he says, now the Lord is the Spirit. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that Spirit is taken as the subject, as though saying: the Spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit, namely who is the author of the Law, is the Lord, i.e., works by his own free will: “The Spirit blows where it wills” (Jn. 3:8); “The Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11). And where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom; as if to say: because the Spirit is the Lord, he can give freedom to enable us freely to use the writings of the Old Testament without a veil. Therefore, those who do not have the Holy Spirit cannot use it freely: “You were called to freedom” (Gal. 5:13); “Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil” (1 Pet. 2:16). It can be understood another way so that by the Lord is meant Christ, as though saying: the Lord, i.e., Christ, is Spirit, i.e., has spiritual power. Therefore, where the Spirit of the Lord is, i.e., the law of Christ spiritually understood, not in a written code, but impressed on the heart by faith, there is freedom from every obscurity of the veil.

112. – It should be noted that by occasion of these words, namely, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom, and of those found in 1 Timothy (1:9): “The law is not laid down for the just”, some have erroneously said that spiritual men are not bound by the precepts of the divine law. But this is false, for God’s precepts are the rule of the human will. But there is no man or angel whose will does not need to be ruled and directed by divine law. Hence, it is impossible for any man not to be subject to God’s precepts. But the statement that “the law is not laid down for the just” means that the law was not laid down “for the just” who are led by an internal habit to do what the law of God commands, but because of the unjust. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the just are not bound to it. Similarly, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom, is explained thus: the free man is one who exists for himself, but the servant exists for the sake of the master. Therefore, whoever acts of himself acts freely, but one who is moved by another does not act freely. Therefore, one who avoids evils, not because they are evil, but because of God’s commandment, is not free. But one who avoids evils because they are evils is free. But this is done by the Holy Spirit who perfects man inwardly with a good habit, so that from love he avoids evil, as if the divine law had commanded. Consequently, he is called free, not as though he is not subject to the divine law, but because he is inclined by a good habit to do what the divine law ordains.

113. – Then when he says, and we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another, he shows how the faithful of Christ are altogether free of this veil. He says, therefore: I say that this veil will be removed from them, when a person may be converted as we are; not a particular one, but we all who are Christ’s faithful: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables” (Lk. 8:10). With unveiled face, not having a veil upon the heart, as they. By face is meant the heart or the mind, because just as a person sees bodily with the face, so spiritually with the mind: “Open my eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of your law” (Ps. 119:18). The glory of the Lord, not of Moses: for glory signifies brightness, as Augustine says. But the Jews saw some glory on the face of Moses as a result of his speaking with God. But this glory is imperfect, because it is not the glory with which God is glorious: and this is to know God himself. Or the glory of the Lord, i.e., the Son of God: “The glory of a father is a wise son” (Prov. 10:1, Vulgate).

114. – Beholding, i.e., speculating, which is not taken from the word which means “watch tower” (specula), but from “mirror” (speculum), i.e., knowing the glorious God himself by the mirror of reason, in which there is an image of God. We behold him when we rise from a consideration of ourselves to some knowledge of God, and we are transformed. For since all knowledge involves the knower’s being assimilated to the thing known, it is necessary that those who see be in some way transformed into God. If they see perfectly, they are perfectly transformed, as the blessed in heaven by the union of enjoyment: “When he appears we shall be like him” (1 Jn. 3:2); but if we see imperfectly, then we are transformed imperfectly, as here by faith: “Now we see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12).

115. – Therefore he says, into his likeness, that is, as we see, we are transformed, I say, from one degree of glory to another. In this he distinguishes a triple degree of knowledge in Christ’s disciples. The first is from the clarity of natural knowledge to the clarity of the knowledge of faith. The second is from the clarity of the knowledge of the Old Testament to the clarity of the knowledge of the grace of the New Testament. The third is from the clarity of natural knowledge and of the Old and New Testaments to the clarity of eternal vision: “Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day” (2 Cor. 4:16). But how does this come about? Not by the letter of the law, but from the Lord who is the Spirit: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Rom. 8:14); “Let your good Spirit lead me on a level path” (Ps. 143:10).

Subpages (1): Chapter 4

Comments