Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, did not see the essence of God. For just as we read of Paul that he was rapt to the third heaven, so we read of Peter (Acts 10:10) that "there came upon him an ecstasy of mind." Now Peter, in his ecstasy, saw not God's essence but an imaginary vision. Therefore it would seem that neither did Paul see the essence of God.

Objection 2: Further, the vision of God is beatific. But Paul, in his rapture, was not beatified; else he would never have returned to the unhappiness of this life, but his body would have been glorified by the overflow from his soul, as will happen to the saints after the resurrection, and this clearly was not the case. Therefore Paul when in rapture saw not the essence of God.

Objection 3: Further, according to 1 Cor. 13:10-12, faith and hope are incompatible with the vision of the Divine essence. But Paul when in this state had faith and hope. Therefore he saw not the essence of God.

Objection 4: Further, as Augustine states (Gen. ad lit. xii, 6,7), "pictures of bodies are seen in the imaginary vision." Now Paul is stated (2 Cor. 12:2,4) to have seen certain pictures in his rapture, for instance of the "third heaven" and of "paradise." Therefore he would seem to have been rapt to an imaginary vision rather than to the vision of the Divine essence.

On the contrary, Augustine (Ep. CXLVII, 13; ad Paulin., de videndo Deum) concludes that "possibly God's very substance was seen by some while yet in this life: for instance by Moses, and by Paul who in rapture heard unspeakable words, which it is not granted unto man to utter."

I answer that, Some have said that Paul, when in rapture, saw "not the very essence of God, but a certain reflection of His clarity." But Augustine clearly comes to an opposite decision, not only in his book (De videndo Deum), but also in Gen. ad lit. xii, 28 (quoted in a gloss on 2 Cor. 12:2). Indeed the words themselves of the Apostle indicate this. For he says that "he heard secret words, which it is not granted unto man to utter": and such would seem to be words pertaining to the vision of the blessed, which transcends the state of the wayfarer, according to Is. 64:4, "Eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that love Thee" . Therefore it is more becoming to hold that he saw God in His essence.

Reply to Objection 1: Man's mind is rapt by God to the contemplation of divine truth in three ways. First, so that he contemplates it through certain imaginary pictures, and such was the ecstasy that came upon Peter. Secondly, so that he contemplates the divine truth through its intelligible effects; such was the ecstasy of David, who said (Ps. 115:11): "I said in my excess: Every man is a liar." Thirdly, so that he contemplates it in its essence. Such was the rapture of Paul, as also of Moses ; and not without reason, since as Moses was the first Teacher of the Jews, so was Paul the first "Teacher of the gentiles" .

Reply to Objection 2: The Divine essence cannot be seen by a created intellect save through the light of glory, of which it is written (Ps. 35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light." But this light can be shared in two ways. First by way of an abiding form, and thus it beatifies the saints in heaven. Secondly, by way of a transitory passion, as stated above (Question 171, Article 2) of the light of prophecy; and in this way that light was in Paul when he was in rapture. Hence this vision did not beatify him simply, so as to overflow into his body, but only in a restricted sense. Consequently this rapture pertains somewhat to prophecy.

Reply to Objection 3: Since, in his rapture, Paul was beatified not as to the habit, but only as to the act of the blessed, it follows that he had not the act of faith at the same time, although he had the habit.

Reply to Objection 4: In one way by the third heaven we may understand something corporeal, and thus the third heaven denotes the empyrean , which is described as the "third," in relation to the aerial and starry heavens, or better still, in relation to the aqueous and crystalline heavens. Moreover Paul is stated to be rapt to the "third heaven," not as though his rapture consisted in the vision of something corporeal, but because this place is appointed for the contemplation of the blessed. Hence the gloss on 2 Cor. 12 says that the "third heaven is a spiritual heaven, where the angels and the holy souls enjoy the contemplation of God: and when Paul says that he was rapt to this heaven he means that God showed him the life wherein He is to be seen forevermore."

In another way the third heaven may signify a supra-mundane vision. Such a vision may be called the third heaven in three ways. First, according to the order of the cognitive powers. In this way the first heaven would indicate a supramundane bodily vision, conveyed through the senses; thus was seen the hand of one writing on the wall (Dan. 5:5); the second heaven would be an imaginary vision such as Isaias saw, and John in the Apocalypse; and the third heaven would denote an intellectual vision according to Augustine's explanation (Gen. ad lit. xii, 26,28,34). Secondly, the third heaven may be taken according to the order of things knowable, the first heaven being "the knowledge of heavenly bodies, the second the knowledge of heavenly spirits, the third the knowledge of God Himself." Thirdly, the third heaven may denote the contemplation of God according to the degrees of knowledge whereby God is seen. The first of these degrees belongs to the angels of the lowest hierarchy , the second to the angels of the middle hierarchy, the third to the angels of the highest hierarchy, according to the gloss on 2 Cor. 12.

And since the vision of God cannot be without delight, he says that he was not only "rapt to the third heaven" by reason of his contemplation, but also into "Paradise" by reason of the consequent delight.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Paulus in raptu non viderit dei essentiam. Sicut enim de Paulo legitur quod est raptus usque ad tertium caelum, ita et de Petro legitur, Act. X, quod cecidit super eum mentis excessus.

Sed Petrus in suo excessu non vidit dei essentiam, sed quandam imaginariam visionem.

Ergo videtur quod nec Paulus dei essentiam viderit.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, visio dei facit hominem beatum. Sed Paulus in illo raptu non fuit beatus, alioquin nunquam ad vitae huius miseriam rediisset, sed corpus eius fuisset per redundantiam ab anima glorificatum, sicut erit in sanctis post resurrectionem; quod patet esse falsum. Ergo Paulus in raptu non vidit dei essentiam.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, fides et spes esse non possunt simul cum visione divinae essentiae, ut habetur I ad Cor. XIII, sed Paulus in statu illo habuit fidem et spem. Ergo non vidit dei essentiam.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. Ad litt., secundum visionem imaginariam quaedam similitudines corporum videntur. Sed Paulus videtur in raptu quasdam similitudines vidisse, puta tertii caeli et Paradisi, ut habetur II ad Cor. XII.

Ergo videtur esse raptus ad imaginariam visionem, magis quam ad visionem divinae essentiae.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus determinat, in libro de videndo deum ad Paulinam, quod ipsa dei substantia a quibusdam videri potuit in hac vita positis, sicut a Moyse, et Paulo, qui raptus audivit ineffabilia verba, quae non licet homini loqui.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt Paulum in raptu non vidisse ipsam dei essentiam, sed quandam refulgentiam claritatis ipsius. Sed contrarium manifeste Augustinus determinat, non solum in libro de videndo deum, sed etiam XII super Gen. Ad litt., et habetur in Glossa, II ad Cor. XII. Et hoc etiam ipsa verba apostoli designant. Dicit enim se audisse ineffabilia verba, quae non licet homini loqui, huiusmodi autem videntur ea quae pertinent ad visionem beatorum, quae excedit statum viae, secundum illud Isaiae LXIV, oculus non vidit, deus, absque te, quae praeparasti diligentibus te.

Et ideo convenientius dicitur quod deum per essentiam vidit.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod mens humana divinitus rapitur ad contemplandam veritatem divinam, tripliciter. Uno modo, ut contempletur eam per similitudines quasdam imaginarias.

Et talis fuit excessus mentis qui cecidit supra Petrum. Alio modo, ut contempletur veritatem divinam per intelligibiles effectus, sicut fuit excessus David dicentis, ego dixi in excessu meo, omnis homo mendax.

Tertio, ut contempletur eam in sua essentia. Et talis fuit raptus Pauli, et etiam Moysi. Et satis congruenter, nam sicut Moyses fuit primus doctor Iudaeorum, ita Paulus fuit primus doctor gentium.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod divina essentia videri ab intellectu creato non potest nisi per lumen gloriae, de quo dicitur in Psalmo, in lumine tuo videbimus lumen.

Quod tamen dupliciter participari potest. Uno modo, per modum formae immanentis, et sic beatos facit sanctos in patria.

Alio modo, per modum cuiusdam passionis transeuntis, sicut dictum est de lumine prophetiae.

Et hoc modo lumen illud fuit in Paulo, quando raptus fuit. Et ideo ex tali visione non fuit simpliciter beatus, ut fieret redundantia ad corpus, sed solum secundum quid.

Et ideo talis raptus aliquo modo ad prophetiam pertinet.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quia Paulus in raptu non fuit beatus habitualiter, sed solum habuit actum beatorum; consequens est ut simul tunc in eo non fuerit actus fidei, fuit tamen in eo simul fidei habitus.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod nomine tertii caeli potest uno modo intelligi aliquid corporeum. Et sic tertium caelum est caelum empyreum, quod dicitur tertium respectu caeli aerei et caeli siderei; vel potius respectu caeli siderei et respectu caeli aquei sive crystallini. Et dicitur raptus ad tertium caelum, non quia raptus sit ad videndum similitudinem alicuius rei corporeae, sed propter hoc quod locus ille est contemplationis beatorum.

Unde Glossa dicit, II ad Cor. XII, quod tertium est spirituale caelum, ubi Angeli et sanctae animae fruuntur dei contemplatione. Ad quod cum dicit se raptum, significat quod deus ostendit ei vitam in qua videndus est in aeternum.

Alio modo per tertium caelum potest intelligi aliqua visio supermundana. Quae potest dici tertium caelum triplici ratione.

Uno modo, secundum ordinem potentiarum cognoscitivarum, ut primum caelum dicatur visio supermundana corporalis, quae fit per sensum, sicut visa est manus scribentis in pariete, Dan. V; secundum autem caelum sit visio imaginaria, puta quam vidit Isaias, et ioannes in Apocalypsi; tertium vero caelum dicatur visio intellectualis, ut Augustinus exponit, XII super Gen. Ad litt..

Secundo modo potest dici tertium caelum secundum ordinem cognoscibilium, ut primum caelum dicatur cognitio caelestium corporum; secundum cognitio caelestium spirituum; tertium, cognitio ipsius dei.

Tertio potest dici tertium caelum contemplatio dei secundum gradus cognitionis qua deus videtur, quorum primus pertinet ad Angelos infimae hierarchiae, secundus ad Angelos mediae, tertius ad Angelos supremae, ut dicit Glossa, II ad Cor. XII.

Et quia visio dei non potest esse sine delectatione, propterea non solum se dicit raptum ad tertium caelum, ratione contemplationis, sed etiam in Paradisum, ratione delectationis consequentis.