2 Corinthians 3:1 Douay-Rheims

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need (as some do) epistles of commendation to you, or from you?

Thomas Aquinas

1225–1274 Catholic

After the Apostle has set forth his excuse, in which he sought the goodwill of his hearers, here he consequently pursues his intention, namely treating of the ministers of the new testament. And concerning this he does two things. For first he commends the dignity of good ministers; but second he sets out at length the malice of evil ministers, and this from chapter 10 onward. Concerning the first he does two things. For first he commends the ministry of the new testament; second he commends the use of this ministry in others, exhorting them to it, at chapter 6: "but helping," etc. Concerning the first he commends this ministry of the new testament from three things. First from its dignity, in this chapter; second from its use, in chapter 4, at "therefore having," etc.; third from its reward, in chapter 5, at "for we know that if," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he removes a certain objection; second he commends the ministers of the new testament, at "who has also made us fit," etc.

Concerning the first it must be known that the Apostle intends to commend the ministers of the new testament, of whom he himself was one. And therefore, lest the Corinthians should object to him that in this he wished to commend himself, he immediately excludes this, saying, "we begin again ourselves," etc. Where he does two things. First he raises a question; second he responds, at, namely, "or do we need," etc. His question is this: I say that we are not adulterating the word of God, as the pseudo, but from sincerity, as from God. But by saying this, do we begin again to commend ourselves, that is, do we say these things because we wish to seek our own glory and not God's? And he says "again," because in the first epistle he had commended himself enough, when he said: "as a wise master-builder," etc. Therefore we do not say this in order to seek our own glory, but God's. Prov. 27:2: "let a stranger praise you," etc.

But he responds to this question when he says, "or do we need," etc. And he shows that he does not gladly commend himself. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows that he does not need the commendation of men; second, that he does not even require this from them, at "but such confidence," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he does not need their commendation for his own glory; second he assigns the cause of this, at "you are our epistle," etc.

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: "or do we need," we true ministers, as certain ones, namely the pseudo, letters of commendation, that is, praises sent, to you, from others, or from you, sent to others? But against this, in Col. 4:10 it is said: "Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received a command," etc. Also, the legates of the Pope always carry letters of commendation. Therefore it is not evil.

I respond. It must be said that to receive letters of this kind from famous persons, so that only through them are they commended and honored, until they themselves come into notice from their own good works, this is not evil; this the legates of the Pope do. But the Apostle was already so known and commended among these people through his own works, that he did not need letters of commendation. And therefore, immediately assigning the cause of this, he adds: "you are our epistle." As if he were to say: I have good letters, I do not need others. And therefore concerning this he does two things. For first he shows what this letter is that he has; second he explains this same thing, at "manifested," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows what that letter is; second he shows it to be sufficient for his own commendation, at "written," etc.

He says therefore thus: "you are our epistle," that is, the epistle through which our dignity is manifested, by which we are commended, so that we do not need other letters. Above, chapter 2: "you are our glory." Gal. 4:19: "my little children, whom I am again in labor for," etc. But is this letter sufficient? Yes, because "written," etc. Where he touches on two things that cause the sufficiency of letters of this kind. One is that it be understood and known by him for whom it is sent, otherwise he would still be seeking it, unless he knew that he had it. And as to this he says, "written in our hearts," because we always hold you in memory, having a special care for you. Phil. 1:7: "because I hold you," etc. The second is that he to whom it is sent should read and know it, otherwise he would not care about its commendation. And as to this he says, "which is known and read by all men." It is known, I say, because you have been instructed and converted through us. But it is read, because by our example others also imitate you. Hab. 2:2: "write the vision, and make it plain upon tablets, that he who reads it may run."

But how this epistle is known, he explains, saying "manifested," etc. And concerning this he does three things. First he explains whose this letter is; second, how it is written; and third, in what. But whose it is, he shows thus, that it is Christ's. And therefore he says, "manifested, that you are of Christ," that is, formed and led by Christ, namely principally and authoritatively. Matt. 23:8: "one is your master." But by us secondarily and instrumentally. And therefore he says, "ministered by us." 1 Cor. 4:1: "let a man so regard us," etc. 1 Cor. 3:4: "what then is Cephas," etc.

But how it is written, he shows, that it is not with ink, that is, not mixed with errors, as the pseudo-apostles; not changeable and imperfect, like the old law, which brought no one to perfection, Heb. 7:19. For ink is black, by which error is understood, and erasable, by which changeableness is understood. It is not, I say, written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, that is, with the Holy Spirit, by whom you live, and by whose teaching you have been instructed. Eph. 1:13: "in whom you have been sealed." But where it is written he suggests, adding, "not on tablets of stone," as the old law, so as to exclude hardness, as if he were to say: not in hearts of stone having hardness, like the Jews. Acts 7:51: "stiff-necked," etc. But "on the fleshly tablets of the heart," that is, in hearts wide from charity, and fleshly, that is, soft from an affection of fulfilling and understanding. Ezek. 36:26: "I will take away from you the heart of stone," etc.

"But such confidence," etc. The Apostle above excused himself, that he did not seek his own glory because he did not need it; but here he proves that he himself does not seek his own glory, indeed he does not attribute all the good that he does to himself, but to God. And concerning this he does two things. For first he attributes all the good that he has and does to God; second he assigns the cause of this, at "not that we are sufficient," etc.

He says therefore first: I say that we do not need letters of commendation, and that you are our epistle, ministered by us. Nor do we even seek our own glory, but Christ's. And "such confidence," that is, of saying such things, "we have toward God," that is, we refer it to God. Or a confidence tending toward God, from whose strength I say this, because he himself works in me. Which confidence indeed we have "through Christ," through whom we have access to the Father, as it is said in Rom. 5:2, who has united us to God. Jer. 17:7: "blessed is the man," etc. And because united to God through Christ, I have this confidence. Ps. 11:6: "I will act with confidence," etc.

But the cause of this confidence is that whatever I do, even the very beginning of the work, I attribute to God. And therefore he says, "not that we are sufficient to think," let alone to say, or to fulfill. For in any process of a work, first there is assent, which comes about through thinking, then a bringing together through the word, and afterward fulfillment through the deed; hence it follows that thus no one has even the thinking from himself, but from God; for there is no doubt that not only the perfection of a good work is from God, but also its beginning. Phil. 1:6: "who has begun a good work in you," etc. And this is against the Pelagians, who say that the beginning of a good work is from us, but the perfection is from God. Isa. 26:12: "all our works," etc.

But from this, lest he should seem to take away the freedom of the will, he says "from us, as it were from ourselves," as if he were to say: I can indeed do something, which belongs to free will, but this, which I do, is not from me, but from God, who confers this very power; so that thus he both defends the freedom of man when he says "from us," that is, from our part, and commends the divine grace, when he says "as it were," namely that it proceeds from ourselves, but is from God. The Philosopher also holds this, that man can never do a certain good by free will, without the help of God. And his reasoning is this, that in those things which we do, that must be sought for the sake of which we do them. But it is not possible to proceed to infinity, but one must arrive at something first, namely at counsel. So therefore I do good, because counsel toward this is present in me, and this is from God. Hence he says that the counsel of good is from someone who is above man, moving him to act well. And this is God, who moves both men and all things that act, to their actions, but in different ways. For since a motion of this kind is something received in the thing moved, it is necessary that this come about according to the manner of its own nature, that is, of the thing moved. And therefore he moves all things according to their natures. Those things, therefore, whose nature it is to be of free will, having dominion over their own actions, he moves freely to their operations, as rational and intellectual creatures. But other things not freely, but according to the manner of their nature.

But although we are not sufficient to think anything from ourselves, as it were from ourselves, nevertheless we have some sufficiency, by which, namely, we can will the good and begin to believe, and this is from God. 1 Cor. 4:7: "what do you have, that you have not received?"

Source details
1272 · Commentary on 2 Corinthians, ch. 3, l1

English is machine-translated from the public-domain Latin (Corpus Thomisticum), since no public-domain English translation exists. It is not a scholarly translation. Please report errors.

Read 2 Cor 3:1 in context →