The Rapture of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Third Heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-10) in the Byzantine theological tradition

Introduction

The heavenly world was a living reality in the minds of ordinary Byzantines, although they did not reduce it to a single representation or unified construct. This was partly due to the nature of mystical experience and the limitations of language in expressing it, but also to the differences between the popular and biblical understandings of heaven, inherited from Greek physics and astronomy. According to biblical tradition, heaven was situated above the ‘firmament’, a solid vault suspended over the earth, which separated the waters on the earth from those above the firmament—waters that fell to the earth in the form of rain, hail or snow (cf. Genesis 1:6)1. The Greek conception, by contrast, envisaged a series of seven rotating heavens, understood as concentric spheres, each in contact with the one above and the one below. The Byzantine commitment to both aspects can be clearly seen in the writings of Saint John of Damascus, whose treatises on the nature of the heavens include a significant overview of contemporary science and astronomy2.

Although it might seem obvious that the heavenly world was, at the very least, a celestial reality, even this was not always clear, since Saint Paul the Apostle had identified, or at least associated, his rapture to the ‘third heaven’ with a visit to ‘Paradise’ (2 Corinthians 12:1–10), the latter being regarded as a decidedly earthly reality (although this point was also debated)3. Authors of popular religious literature were more interested in an earthly paradise—or at least one perceptible to the senses—whose precise location they sought to discover and whose topography they endeavoured to describe. These accounts were often concerned with the fate of souls after death, with many believing that they dwelt in ‘Paradise’4. Authors with strictly theological or spiritual concerns, on the other hand, would not have denied the truth of these popular accounts, but their interest was not directed towards the outward form or appearance of heaven (or paradise), but rather towards its spiritual nature, as well as the initiatory and intellectual processes necessary to enter such a state. In other words, their concern was not with the physical nature of the place to which the soul was travelling, but with the inner disposition of the spiritual traveller. These traditions were not necessarily in conflict or competition with one another, but rather reflected differences in audience, literary genre and the specific interests of each author or school.

The account by Saint Paul the Apostle is the only direct, first-century description of a rapture into heaven that has survived. It is astonishingly brief, comprising approximately fifty words.

This study focuses primarily on the second tradition, that of theological and spiritual writers, which will be explored and analysed through the lens of Saint Paul the Apostle’s famous rapture to the third heaven, as described in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 12:1–10). Saint Paul’s account is the only direct, first-century description of a rapture to heaven that has survived5. It is astonishingly brief, comprising approximately fifty words—little more than an elliptical digression on ‘visions and revelations’, inserted into a broader series of arguments. In the tradition of ironic boasting, Saint Paul attributes the experience to a ‘certain man’ who was ‘caught up’ to the third heaven, subsequently stating that this man was ‘caught up into Paradise’, where he heard ‘unspeakable things, which a man is not permitted to utter’. Complicating matters further, Saint Paul confesses that he does not know whether the experience took place ‘in the body or out of the body’. Readers have thus been left puzzled as to the exact relationship between the third heaven and Heaven itself, with some considering them to be one and the same place, others understanding that the apostle is describing two separate raptures, whilst others maintain that it is a single rapture taking place in two distinct stages6. Further issues have arisen regarding the spiritual or physical nature of the experience and, last but not least, the fact that St Paul’s epistle says nothing about the content, meaning or purpose of the heavenly revelation, or why the words he heard could not be communicated to others7.

The Patristic Period

Despite these ambiguities, or perhaps precisely because of them, the account of Saint Paul’s rapture aroused considerable interest throughout the patristic and Byzantine periods. In general, the Holy Fathers accepted the account as entirely appropriate and natural, recognising in Saint Paul’s rapture a paradigm for their own spiritual experiences. This connection was largely authorised by the influential Life of Anthony, written by Saint Athanasius, in which the Desert Father is described as being ‘carried away in thought’, as if he were outside himself, guided through the air. Saint Anthony’s rapture is compared to that of Saint Paul, enabling him to see what Saint Paul had called ‘the prince of the power of the air’ (Ephesians 2:2)8. The content of these heavenly visions varied, but they almost always took Saint Paul the Apostle as their model. Palladius, for example, recounts a similar episode of ecstatic rapture experienced by Evagrius: he recounts how, whilst meditating amongst other monks, he felt overwhelmed with joy and saw himself lifted up like the clouds, carrying the whole world within a single glance; then he came to his senses with the book in his hand, not knowing whether he had been lifted up in the body or out of the body, ‘I do not know, God knows’ (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:3)9. The use of Paul’s account as a model for the Christian mystical experience was far older than the fourth century and had already appeared, in a well-developed form, in Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs, which merges the inner ‘chamber’ of the heavenly Bridegroom with the apostle’s ‘third chamber’. Origen’s Commentary has survived only in a Latin translation, although the passage linking Saint Paul’s ecstasy to Christian spiritual exegesis exists in Greek in the Catena on the Song of Songs, compiled by Procopius of Gaza (c. 460–52610). Origen was also deeply indebted to the writings and person of Saint Paul, from whom he drew the fundamental principles of his spiritual exegesis11. ‘If anyone wishes to be a Christian and a disciple of Paul,’ Origen maintained, ‘let them heed what Paul says: that the law is spiritual’12. In the school of Saint Paul, spiritual exegesis did not mean the application of conventional exegetical methods, but was intended to bring about the personal transformation of the exegete. This symbol of change was none other than Saint Paul’s rapture to the third heaven, which Origen understood as a model for the soul’s passage from the visible to the invisible, as a paradigm of the exegetical movement from ‘letter’ to ‘spirit’ (2 Corinthians 3:6; cf. Romans 2:29, 7:6)13. Origen’s model, formed in a single instance, encompassed the entire sequence of the mystical ascent and was subsequently developed by a large number of later patristic and Byzantine writers.

In general, the Holy Fathers accepted this account as entirely fitting and natural, recognising in Saint Paul’s rapture a paradigm for their own spiritual experiences.

Saint Maximus the Confessor

An elaborate example of this development is found in Saint Maximus the Confessor’s Ambigua14. In this passage, Saint Maximus interprets the rapture of Saint Paul the Apostle within the framework of spiritual progress and the theology of deification. He is not concerned with mapping out the heavens, but with explaining deification. Saint Maximus observes that the potential for deification is not an inherent capacity of human nature, but the work of divine Grace, the reception of which requires man to ‘step outside himself’, that is, to enter a state of ecstasy, for which Saint Paul provides the essential key. Saint Maximus then undertakes an interpretation of the apostle’s ascension, which he unfolds in accordance with the three stages of purification, illumination and mystical union15.

The first stage comprises (1.1) the ‘practical philosophy’ of asceticism, (1.2) the renunciation of the passionate nature, and (1.3) a state of dispassion. The second stage is characterised by (2.1) transcending thoughts generated by sensory perception, (2.2) transcending time and space (that is, the irreducible conditions in which the objects of perception exist), or (2.3) ‘natural contemplation’, which is the understanding of the intelligible and, ultimately, divine foundations of physical reality. The third and final stage is either (3.1) ‘abiding’ in God, (3.2) a restoration to the divine source, or (3.3) initiation into ‘theological wisdom’. Since the Trinity is an ecstatic state characterised by the cessation of sensation and intellect, it is not ‘something the apostle accomplished, but something that happened to him’, the sole ‘work’ in the actual process belonging entirely to God16. As for the meaning of ‘the third heaven’, Saint Maximus offers three interpretations: either (1) the ‘boundary’ or ‘limit’ of the three stages which Paul reached, or (2) ‘the three orders of angels above us’17, or, through these angelic orders, a process of negation and affirmation. By denying knowledge of one order of angels, the apostle was initiated into the order immediately above it, ‘for the positive affirmation of knowledge of those above is achieved through the denial of knowledge of those below’, just as the negation of what is above implies the affirmation of what is below. This process comes to an end with the final denial of ‘the knowledge of God’, beyond which no further affirmation can exist, ‘since there is no longer any boundary or limit that can define or frame the denial’18.

The fact that Saint Paul the Apostle could not determine whether he had been ‘in the body’ or ‘out of the body’ was a natural consequence of the apostle’s ecstasy. (…) The words that Saint Paul heard could not be repeated, for, since they had been uttered beyond the reach of the mind, they could neither be grasped by ordinary thought, nor expressed in ordinary speech, nor perceived by ordinary human hearing.

According to Saint Maximus the Confessor, the fact that Saint Paul the Apostle could not determine whether he had been ‘in the body’ or ‘out of the body’ was a natural consequence of the apostle’s ecstasy: since Saint Paul had gone out of himself in ecstasy, his power of sensory perception was inactive, and thus he was not ‘in the body’; yet neither was he completely ‘out of the body’, since his intellectual faculty was also inactive during the rapture. Saint Maximus states that it is also for this reason that the words Saint Paul heard could not be repeated, for, since they had been uttered beyond the reach of the mind, they could neither be grasped by ordinary thought, nor spoken in ordinary speech, nor perceived by ordinary human hearing. Saint Maximus concludes this complex interpretation by building upon the idea that Paul’s threefold ascent is an expression of the spiritual progress resulting from a life lived in accordance with the Pauline virtues of ‘faith, hope and love’ (1 Corinthians 13:13) 19.

(…) the three heavens signify the higher stages of the spiritual life and their respective modes of knowledge. The progression through these three stages is thus a movement from the lower to the higher modes of knowledge, as the soul increasingly detaches itself from the bodily senses, passing into a realm beyond the intellect.

In Saint Maximus’s interpretation of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 12:1–4, the rapture of Saint Paul the Apostle is fully identified with the mystical ascent and the experience of deification. What Saint Paul’s account of the structure and organisation of the heavenly world might reveal is of little interest to him. Instead, the three heavens signify—indeed, are in fact—the higher stages of spiritual life and their respective modes of knowledge. The progression through these three stages is thus a movement from the lower to the higher modes of knowledge, as the soul increasingly detaches itself from the bodily senses, passing into a realm beyond the intellect. The state of being ‘caught up’, of being ‘outside oneself’, allows for an immediate experience of God in ecstasy, so that Saint Paul’s rapture, far from being a unique and extraordinary event, coincides with the very goal for which the Christian life is prepared, namely the experience of deification. For later Byzantine writers, this was to become the standard interpretation of 2 Corinthians 12:2–4, so that every saint has the potential to become ‘another Paul’ (ἕτερος Παῦλος), raptured up to the third heaven of theology20.

Saint Maximus’s interpretation is closely linked to the theology of Dionysius the Areopagite, within whose system it forms part of a dynamic encounter between two ecstasies, such that the soul’s ecstasy towards God is met by God’s ecstasy towards the soul. Whilst Dionysius acknowledges that this is a ‘bold’ assertion, he nevertheless places it at the centre of his vision of the universe, namely that the divine itself is subject to the ecstasy of love, being drawn ‘out of itself’ (ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ) in his loving and providential care for creation. Thus, Saint Paul’s ecstasy serves as a microcosmic framework for the broader narrative of God’s ecstasy in creation21. Dionysius himself, however, never quotes 2 Corinthians 12:1–10 and, consequently, never mentions Saint Paul’s rapture into heaven, probably because such an ascent would have violated the fixed boundaries of his celestial hierarchies. This omission was noted by the first commentator on Dionysius, John of Scythopolis, who tacitly corrected it in his scholia. For John, the links between Paul and the Dionysian corpus were evident: ‘Paul’s Epistles prove the authenticity of these writings, and above all the lack of artifice in all these teachings’22. For him, the theology of the Dionysian writings is an extension of Saint Paul’s theology, and thus confirmed by him—a recognition reflected in his Scholia, which systematically draw parallels between the Dionysian corpus and the Epistles of Saint Paul. Thus, for John, Dionysius’s knowledge of the angelic hierarchies was acquired during Paul’s rapture to the ‘third heaven’ (2 Corinthians 12:2): ‘Here, I believe, Dionysius speaks of none other than Saint Paul, for he was taken up into the third heaven and initiated into these things’23.

The Middle Byzantine Period

John Geometres

The interpretative traditions described above continued to be widely accepted amongst Byzantine theologians and intellectuals, whilst adapting to the needs of a changing Church and society. With the establishment of the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Constantinople, St Paul’s assumption into heaven was seen in a new light, becoming the means by which St Paul’s presence at the burial of the Mother of God was explained—he having been carried through the air on a cloud24.

An important witness to this tradition is John Geometres (c. 935/40–1000), who was active in Constantinople during the second half of the 10th century. Geometres was the poet laureate of his era, but he also produced a rich body of ecclesiastical literature, including a homiletic discourse for the feast of the Dormition, generally referred to as The Life of the Mother of God. The work remains unpublished, with the exception of the section on the Dormition, which was edited and published in a French translation in 1955 by Antoine Wenger. As the text is not well known, I shall quote the relevant passage in its entirety. As we shall see, Geometres presents a synthesis of almost all the exegetical, scientific and spiritual discourses that Byzantine culture had brought to the discussion concerning Saint Paul’s ascension into heaven: ‘Some people—by no means few in number or lacking in learning—have written about Paul and his rapture to the third heaven, saying that he was caught up in a cloud so that he might be present at the Virgin’s departure from earth to heaven, a rapture which he himself revealed to us (2 Corinthians 12:2), although such an identification of the two events is disputed by many. For example, some believe that, by the phrase ‘as far as (ὡς) the third heaven’ (2 Corinthians 12:2), St Paul was referring to the belt of planets in the heavens, since Scripture often calls ‘heaven’ what actually means ‘air’ and especially ‘ether’, just as it speaks of ‘the birds of the air’ (Genesis 2:19; Psalm 8:9; Matthew 6:26), of ‘planets’ (Isaiah 13:10; Matthew 24:29; Revelation 6:13) or of the ‘stars of the heavens’ (Exodus 32:13; Hebrews 11:12). Among the stars, some are further away and others closer, their constellations being determined by their relative distances. Those who hold these views conclude that Saint Paul saw things beyond the ocean, or which were close to the ocean, including Heaven itself25. Others believe that the ‘third heaven’ is the intelligible heaven, situated beyond the two sensible heavens. Of these, one (cf. Genesis 1:7), the firmament, can be perceived by the senses due to its physical functions and form; the other is, by its very nature, potentially visible, just like the first, but, being beyond the firmament, it is hidden from our sight.

It seems to me that something even more sublime and fitting can be discerned here, and at the same time worthy of Saint Paul’s vision. ‘The third heaven’ would be the third order of the heavenly angels, whom Scripture often calls ‘heavens’, though it is not so much their hosts and ranks that we refer to, but rather, just as we call the bands of stars ‘heavens’, we call them ‘heavens’. This third host, starting from the bottom, would be the Thrones, and from the top, the Seraphim26. Having reached this height and been raised above the first two ranks, Saint Paul became a seer of things beyond sight and a hearer of things beyond hearing. He also saw the Saviour Christ in the flesh, so that he would lack nothing in comparison with the other apostles, and from the Saviour Christ he heard those unspeakable words or mysteries (2 Corinthians 12:4). And this is because, having also received the other heavenly visions and sounds described below, he thus learnt the harmonious order, dignity and beauty of the other heavenly choirs, as well as the wisdom and delight of their songs. It is clear that Saint Paul entrusted the greater part of these wonders—at least those which can be spoken of by the tongue and heard by the ear—to his disciples, Dionysius the Areopagite and Hierotheus, as Dionysius himself testifies when speaking of himself and of Hierotheus. But enough of the heavens and raptures, and of whether there was a single such rapture or whether the one described in Scripture was different from this, and of what sort they were and how they took place. Let each person believe as they wish, for it is enough for us to acknowledge that Saint Paul was present, having been carried there on a cloud27.

He also saw the Saviour Christ in the flesh, so that he lacked nothing in comparison with the other apostles, and from the Saviour Christ he heard those words or unspeakable mysteries.

In these two paragraphs, Geometres brings together numerous scriptural passages, traditional biblical exegesis, apocryphal and liturgical sources, as well as Greek science. St Paul’s language is explained on the basis of parallel terms in Scripture, but at the same time it is expanded upon and developed in the light of astronomy. Thus, the outer boundary of St Paul’s ‘third heaven’ is identified as being either the belt of the planets or that of the fixed stars. In addition to these biblical and scientific elements, Geometres also offers an interpretation of the ascension that is more strictly theological and spiritual. His observations on the angelic hosts clearly indicate familiarity with the Dionysian corpus and, probably, with the works of Saint Maximus the Confessor. St Paul’s revelations are attributed directly to Christ the Saviour, perhaps because of the Byzantine belief that St Paul’s conversion took place on the road to Damascus, when the risen Saviour Christ appeared to him in glory and spoke directly to the apostle (cf. Acts of the Apostles IX, 1–19). We shall return to this matter a little later.

Niketas Stethatos

A monk of the Studite monastery, Niketas Stethatos (c. 1005–1085), wrote a short treatise entitled ‘The Contemplation of Paradise’. Written as an exegetical and spiritual exercise, ‘Paradise’ for Stethatos is not primarily the historical Garden of Eden, which he says belongs to a bygone era and is now forever closed to humanity. Instead, he speaks of a second Paradise, a noetic reality, a kind of inner locus, no less real, but one that is no longer situated on a map of the outer cosmos, but exists within the human microcosm. Stethatos identifies this second Paradise with St Paul’s ‘third heaven’, to which all human beings have potential access. Through the Incarnation, the whole of creation can now serve as Heaven, for through the spiritual contemplation of nature, believers can ascend to heaven and to God Himself28.

Stethatos presents Saint Paul’s experience as being accessible to all, asserting that every human soul has the potential to enter the same Heaven that Saint Paul entered.

In the case of Saint Paul, the apostle ascended to the ‘third heaven’ of theology, entering the ‘dark cloud’ of theology and another (ἄλλον) ‘Heaven’, which enabled him to understand and learn the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation29. In this way, Stethatos presents Saint Paul’s experience as being accessible to all, asserting that every human soul has the possibility of entering the same Paradise that Saint Paul entered. Like the apostle, any person can symbolically partake of the Tree of Life and hear the ‘unspeakable words’ from the Tree of Knowledge; or rather, such a person will themselves become a wholly divine Paradise, a dwelling place of the indivisible Trinity, with God Himself planted at the centre of their heart like a Tree of Life, blossoming with the fruits of immortality30.

Michael Psellos

The Byzantine intellectual, writer and statesman Michael Psellos (c. 1017–1081) composed 150 treatises on religious subjects, nearly half of which dealt with passages from Scripture, including a short, little-known treatise on Saint Paul’s rapture to the third heaven. He also produced a large number of exegetical poems, amongst which were a Commentary on the Psalms comprising over 1,300 verses, a Commentary on the Song of Songs comprising over 1,200 verses, and a Commentary on the Six Days of Creation, attributed to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, alongside a large number of short poems on biblical characters, themes and events31.

Psellos begins his treatise, On the Words of Paul: ‘I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago…’ (2 Corinthians 12:2), placing the account of Saint Paul’s rapture within the broader context of the epistle’s argument32. He then proceeds to interpret the passage, observing that ‘if any man is in Christ, he is also raised to heaven by virtue of that relationship’. The basis for this is the imago Dei, since being ‘in Christ’ means having ‘preserved the relationship between the image and its divine archetype unblemished’. As with the writers who preceded him, Psellos’s interpretation ensures that Saint Paul’s individual experience is nothing more than the paradigmatic case of a universal human possibility, so that what ‘man’ was is precisely what anyone who is in Christ will be raised to heaven, just like the apostle.

Psellos’s next task was to explain why Saint Paul the Apostle speaks of ‘three heavens’, when the account of creation in Genesis mentions only one heaven (cf. Genesis 1:1). He observes that even the Greeks maintained the existence of several celestial spheres, although they placed them beyond the heaven created by God, which Scripture refers to simply as ‘the firmament’; a second heaven can only be identified through a misapplication of language, since the term may also refer to the surrounding air. Paul was therefore first lifted up into the air (the first heaven); then, passing beyond the firmament (the second heaven), he found himself in a heavenly region said to be ‘the third heaven’.

Like many writers before him, Psellos must explain how this ‘third heaven’ relates to ‘Paradise’. He notes that earlier exegetes maintained that Saint Paul experienced two separate ascensions or raptures. Psellos regards this as the correct interpretation, as he finds support for it in the text of the epistle. In heaven, Psellos maintains, no words whatsoever could have been spoken within the apostle’s hearing. On the contrary, Saint Paul, whilst in a state of ecstasy, was overwhelmed by the divine light and the singing of the angels, whose voices can be perceived only by God Himself. Sensory perception, on the other hand, is possible only in Heaven and on earth. And whilst the heavens are a noetic reality and circular in form, Heaven is a realm that can be sensed and perceived, for ‘Heaven is a part of the earth, situated in a high place to the north, surrounded by arctic winds’. St Paul first visited the third heaven, whose perfectly circular form allowed his mind to move in a perfect circular motion. Then, like a traveller returning from a boundless ocean, he found refuge for his overwhelmed senses in the sensory haven of Heaven.

Psellos appears to allude to the Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean musical theories revived in late antiquity. Just as souls pass through the planetary spheres on their journey to and from earth and heaven, they hear the so-called ‘music of the spheres’.

Psellos concludes this discussion with a fascinating musical metaphor. He states that, whilst the ascent to the third heaven is rightly called a ‘rapture’, the second ascent, towards paradise, should ‘be understood rather in a musical sense’. This is because ‘those skilled in music say that the transition from a rising, sharp or high-pitched sound to a descending and gentler one is called “rapture”, a point which Hermogenes, in his work On Ideas, states very clearly”33. Psellos appears here to be alluding to the Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean musical theories revived in late antiquity. Just as souls pass through the planetary spheres on their journey to and from earth and heaven, they hear the so-called ‘music of the spheres’34. It is remarkable that, although Saint Paul truly perceives words and sounds, there is also a sense in which he himself is a sound, or a tonal unit modulated as it descends from a higher register to a lower one, so that the coherence of his consciousness corresponds to the general coherence present throughout the cosmos.

The Late Byzantine Period

Saint Gregory Palamas

Saint Gregory Palamas was the leading figure in the late Byzantine Hesychast controversy. Standing at the culmination of a long tradition of reflection and commentary on the writings of Saint Paul, Saint Gregory Palamas asked how the great apostle could have gained access to ‘the hidden and secret wisdom of God’ (1 Corinthians 2:7). How did he come to know what ‘no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no human heart has conceived’ (1 Corinthians 2:9)? How, indeed, did he come to know ‘the depths of God’ (1 Corinthians 2:10)? In his seminal work, The Triads, Saint Gregory Palamas found the answer to these questions in the extraordinary experiences of the Apostle Paul. He argued that the apostle’s wisdom was bestowed upon him through the vision of the ‘light from heaven’ on the day of his conversion (Acts 9:3–7; cf. XXII, 6–11, XXVI, 12), and especially through the ‘visions and revelations’ received on the occasion of his subsequent ‘ascension to the third heaven’ (2 Corinthians XII, 1–4).

In discussing these events, Saint Gregory Palamas emphasises the divine power that transformed ‘Saul’ into ‘Paul’, and it seems clear that this is the point towards which the entire argument of the first Triad is directed35. Saint Gregory Palamas sees in Paul the perfect embodiment of the Hesychast spirituality attacked by his opponents36. He does not bring these experiences into the discussion merely to use them as evidence in support of his theological arguments, but because he believes that Paul himself was the founder and model of a spiritual life that continued to be practised by the Byzantine Hesychasts37. Saint Gregory Palamas’s understanding of Saint Paul’s rapture is firmly rooted in the interpretative tradition analysed in this study, owing primarily to Dionysius the Areopagite and Saint Maximus the Confessor. Throughout the Triads, Saint Gregory Palamas quotes extensively from Saint Paul’s account, for which he was criticised by his opponents, although Saint Gregory Palamas offers little that is truly new38. Novelty, of course, was not his aim, although Saint Gregory Palamas did provide a missing piece of the puzzle regarding whether Paul was ‘in the body or outside it’. Saint Gregory Palamas’s interpretation is based on the Dionysian and Maximius-ian doctrine according to which the ecstasy of deification entails the cessation of sensory and intellectual activities: ‘Now we see through the mediation of the senses, of beings and of divisible symbols; but then we shall see the eternal light directly, face to face, just as Paul, the most divine of the initiated, said: ‘Now we see as through a glass, darkly, but then face to face’ (1 Corinthians 13:12). By the word ‘now’ he refers to the mode of contemplation that is accessible and suited to our nature, for he himself, having risen above nature, saw ‘things unseen’39 and ‘heard words’ that are ‘beyond hearing’ (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:4), receiving within himself that ‘pledge’ (2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 1:14) of that ‘rebirth’ (cf. Titus 3:5) and of the vision that accompanies it, which is why he also said: ‘I have known’ and ‘I have heard’ and ‘I have seen’. These appear to be the workings of perception. But he also said: ‘I do not know whether it was the mind or the body that perceived those things’, for such perception is above both the senses and the intellect, since each of the two is active; and because one of them was active, he understood and knew. That is why he added: ‘God knows’ (2 Corinthians 12:3), for at that moment God was the One who was active. Paul himself, however, having gone beyond what is proper to man, through his union with God, saw unseen realities through the mediation of the unseen, although those realities, even as they became visible to him, never ceased to remain beyond the sphere of perception40.

Saint Gregory Palamas sees in Paul the perfect embodiment of the Hesychast spirituality attacked by his opponents. He does not bring these experiences into the discussion merely to use them as evidence in support of his theological arguments, but because he believes that Paul himself was the founder and model of a spiritual life that continued to be practised by the Byzantine Hesychasts.

Saint Gregory Palamas’s interpretation is carefully grounded in the work of his predecessors, weaving together a series of Pauline themes and images. St Paul’s rapture to the third heaven lies at the heart of St Gregory Palamas’s theological anthropology, with its sophisticated and complex differentiation of strategies for uniting human consciousness with the divine. In the ecstatic displacement of the self, the apostle is taken up by God, Who becomes his centre and Who is indeed the centre of his activity; this is why Saint Paul says: ‘It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me’ (Galatians 2:20)41.

The divine light

In addition to Saint Paul’s rapture to the third heaven, his vision of the divine light on the road to Damascus (Acts of the Apostles 9:3–9, 22:6–11, XXVI, 12–18) also played an important role in the Hesychast controversy. As described by Saint Luke the Evangelist in the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Paul the Apostle, whilst travelling to Damascus, was overwhelmed by a ‘light from heaven which shone round him’, causing him to be temporarily blinded and to fall to the ground. Saint Paul the Apostle heard the voice of Christ the Saviour, Who called him to serve as an apostle to the Gentiles (Acts of the Apostles XXVI, 18). Saint Gregory Palamas does not refer directly to Saint Luke the Evangelist’s account of this vision until the final volume of his trilogy, written around the year 134042. By then, the debate had shifted away from the epistemological issues described above, focusing increasingly on the nature of the divine light, which Saint Gregory Palamas’s opponents regarded merely as a ‘symbol’ or a ‘created phenomenon’43. Having already argued for the continuity between Saint Paul the Apostle and the Hesychasts, Saint Gregory Palamas asserted that what the apostle had seen was nothing other than the eternal, uncreated energy of God—that is, precisely the same uncreated light that the Hesychasts beheld44. By identifying the light of Saint Paul the Apostle’s conversion with the uncreated energy of God, Saint Gregory Palamas was able to reinforce two essential points: firstly, the gift of divine wisdom to Saint Paul was shown to have been communicated to him through the mediation of divine light, not through the ‘light of the mind’ which enlightened Saint Paul, but through the ‘power’ of the Holy Spirit, who dwelt within his soul, and through which the Apostle Paul attained true knowledge of God45. By receiving the Spirit of God, who ‘searches the depths of God’ (1 Corinthians 2:11), Saint Paul the Apostle was granted what ‘no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no human heart has conceived’ (1 Corinthians 2:9). By that same light, moreover, Saint Paul received both ‘the eyes of Christ’ and ‘the mind of Christ’ (1 Corinthians 2:16), through which he was able to see and know the unseen God, for He is not ‘invisible in Himself’, but only to those who see and think with created eyes and minds. But to those with whom God ‘has united Himself’, becoming, so to speak, their mind, how could He not grant them His own vision and Grace?46 The second point follows from the first. If what Saint Paul the Apostle saw was the light of God, and if the light of God is uncreated energy, then it can be concluded that what Saint Paul did not see was the divine essence47. The opponents of Saint Gregory Palamas, of course, did not believe that Saint Paul the Apostle had seen the essence of God, but, since they refused to acknowledge the existence of the divine energies, they had no choice but to maintain that Saint Paul had in fact seen nothing at all. This is not the place to enter into a detailed discussion of the distinction between essence and energies, on which much has been written and which we may conclude here.

Saint Gregory Palamas asserted that what the apostle saw was nothing other than the eternal, uncreated energy of God, that is, precisely the same uncreated light that the Hesychasts saw.

***

Saint Paul the Apostle, as conceived in the modern Christian imagination, is a figure largely constructed in the wake of the Reformation. Justification by faith, the mutual exclusivity of the Law and the Gospel, a radical doctrine of original sin and predestination, as well as an opposition between faith and liturgical worship, are among the predominant features of Saint Paul, as he appears in Wittenberg and Geneva48. But there is another Paul who, although relegated to the margins of modern biblical scholarship, lies at the very heart of the Byzantine exegetical and theological tradition. The Byzantine portrait of Saint Paul the Apostle brings to the fore his dramatic experience of conversion, his vision of divine light and his ‘rapture’ to the third heaven. These features are usually grouped under the now-misplaced category of Pauline ‘mysticism’, and remain among the least studied and most misunderstood aspects of the life and work of Saint Paul the Apostle49.

Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that many modern scholars have found Saint Paul’s visionary experiences, and in particular his rapture to the third heaven, rather alarming, as they transform the familiar Apostle Paul into a believer preoccupied with celestial wanderings. The accounts of ‘visions and revelations’ (2 Corinthians 12:1), as well as the journeys to ‘heaven’ and ‘paradise’ (2 Corinthians 12:2, 4), make Saint Paul resemble a medieval Byzantine saint rather than a modern Protestant pastor, presenting an image of the apostle that many scholars have found difficult to conceive.

However, the epistles of Saint Paul the Apostle, as well as Luke’s account of him in the Acts of the Apostles, show us otherwise. These sources provide ample evidence of Saint Paul’s visionary experiences, revelations and ecstasies, which describe miracles not only associated with him, but also caused by objects that touched his body, such as handkerchiefs (Acts of the Apostles XIX, 12). Saint Paul the Apostle speaks of the indwelling of Christ the Saviour and the Holy Spirit within him, as well as of his experiences of Grace and spiritual transformation50. Of these, his rapture into heaven is quite simply the most dramatic, differing perhaps in degree, but not in nature.

The fact that Holy Scripture depicted one of the greatest figures of the Christian tradition ascending to heaven and into Paradise was an event that exegetes and theologians could not ignore. Whilst the passage in question raised numerous difficulties of interpretation, this did not deter commentators from seeking answers. Drawing on the science and astronomy of their time, commentators sought to determine the number of heavens that might exist above and beyond the earth. They took into account the nature and qualities of the celestial world, as well as the capacity of human consciousness to comprehend and understand such diverse realities. Crossing the threshold of heaven required an ecstatic departure from the body and the mind’s transition to a higher mode of consciousness, towards another realm of being, signalling a fundamental shift in human subjectivity. Perception and consciousness remained, but these faculties were no longer entirely his own. Thus, everything that was seen or heard in this new environment could not be expressed, nor could it be translated directly into language, except in a paradoxical manner. Saint Paul the Apostle testified that he did not know whether he was ‘in the body or out of it’ (2 Corinthians 12:2), not entirely unlike his acknowledgement that ‘it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me’ (Galatians 2:20). Saint Paul’s ‘being in Christ’, like his ascension to heaven, would seem to eliminate or temporarily suspend his own subjectivity, yet Saint Paul can still say ‘I’.

Crossing the threshold of heaven required an ecstatic departure from the body and the mind’s transition to a higher mode of consciousness, towards another realm of being, signalling a fundamental change in human subjectivity.

• 1

  On the biblical firmament and its reception in Byzantine theology, see Nicholas [Maximos] Constas, ‘Symeon of Thessaloniki and the Icon Screen’ in *Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, edited by Sharon Gerstel, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C., 2006, pp. 171, 173–74, 181.

• 2

  St John of Damascus, ‘On Heaven’ in id., On the Orthodox Faith 20, edited by Bonifatius Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 2, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1973, pp. 50–54; and Saint Basil the Great, Hexaemeron III.2–5 (SC 26bis: 190–216), who, writing in a world that was still largely pagan, is generally more critical of the philosophical tradition. It should be noted that both authors cite Paul’s rapture to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1–10).

• 3

  See A. Wenger, ‘Ciel en Paradis: Le séjour des âmes d’après Philippe le Solitaire, Dioptra, Book IV, Chapter X’ in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44, 1951, pp. 560–69.

• 4

  Based largely on Christ’s words to the thief on the cross: ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise’ (Luke 23:43); cf. [Maximos] Constas, “‘To Sleep, Perchance to Dream’: The Middle State of Souls in Byzantine Literature’ in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55, 2001, pp. 91–124.

• 5

  Paula R. Gooder, Only the Third Heaven? 2 Corinthians 12:1–10 and Heavenly Ascent, T&T Clark, London and New York, 2006; provides a useful overview of a century of research. Also useful is the work by James D. Tabor, Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise in its Greco-Roman, Judaic and Early Christian Context, University Press of America, Lanham, 1986; as well as Riemer Roukema, ‘Paul’s Rapture to Paradise in Early Christian Literature’ in The Wisdom of Egypt, edited by Anthony Hilhorst and George H. Van Kooten, Brill, Leiden, 2005, pp. 267–283.

• 6

  The view that Paul experienced two separate raptures, one to the third heaven and the other to Heaven, was put forward by Photius, Bibliotheca 234 in Photius, Bibliothèque, edited by René Henry, vol. 5, Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1967, pp. 85–86; and, later, by Michael Psellos, ‘On St Paul’s Rapture: ‘I Know a Man in Christ with whom Fourteen Years Ago’” in Michaelis Pselli Theologica, 1/111, edited by Gautier, Teubner, Leipzig, 1989. See also Leontius of Constantinople, Homily on Pentecost, who states that, whilst in paradise, Paul saw the ‘good thief’ (cf. Luke 23:43; CCSG 17:401); an opinion also shared by Euthymius Zigabenos, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, who adds that Paul saw there ‘the souls of the saints at rest’, in Ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου καὶ εἰς τὰς Ζ΄ Καθολικές, edited by Nikephoros Kalogeras, vol. 2, Perris, Athens, 1887, p. 480.

• 7

  Of course, the authors of apocryphal literature were only too happy to provide answers to these questions; cf. Gooder. Third Heaven, pp. 104–127; and J. E. Wright, The Early History of Heaven, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 148–163.

• 8

  Saint Athanasius, The Life of Saint Anthony 65.2; 65.8–9 (SC 400:304, 306); cf. The Sayings of Abba Silouan [Apoftegma avvei Siluan], (PG 65:408D).

• 9

  Quoted in Gabriel Bunge, Spiritual Fatherhood: Evagrius Ponticus in the Role of Spiritual Father, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood (NY), 2016, p. 27.

• 10

  Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs I (GCS VIII/33:103–9); cf. Procopius, Catena on the Song of Songs (PG 17:253; PG 87:1552). See also Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Apology for the Hexaemeron, which also describes Paul’s rapture to the third heaven as an ‘entry into the innermost sanctuary of intelligible nature’ (PG 44:121B).

• 11

  For further discussion, see Henri de Lubac, ‘Origen and Paul’, in History and the Spirit: Understanding the Scripture According to Origen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2007, pp. 77–86; and Christoph Markschies. ‘Paul the Apostle’, in The Westminster Handbook to Origen, edited by John McGuckin, Westminster-John Knox, Louisville, 2004, pp. 167–169.

• 12

  Origen, Homily 6.1 on Genesis (SC 7bis: 182–184).

• 13

  For Origen’s use of the rapture of Saint Paul the Apostle as an exegetical principle, see Origen, On the First Principles 2.7.4 (SC 252:332); id., Homily 4.2 on Exodus (SC 321:120–122); id., Homily 23.4 on Joshua (SC 71:462–468); id., Commentary on John 13.28–36 (SC 222:456–51); id., Commentary on Romans 10:43 (PG 14:1290–1292); id., Exhortation to Martyrdom 13 (GCS 1:13); id., Against Celsus 1.48 (SC 147:190–192); and ibid., 6.6, 7.43 (SC 147:190–192, 132:111–116).

• 14

  Saint Maximus the Confessor, On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: Maximos the Confessor, The Ambigua, edited by Nicholas [Maximos] Constas, DOML 1. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, MA, 2014, pp. 408–419 (= Amb. 20).

• 15

  In this passage, Saint Maximus comments on Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 28.20 (30–140), which describes Paul’s rapture as a threefold ‘progression, ascent or ascension to the third heaven’. See also Saint Maximus the Confessor’s scholia on Paul’s ecstasy in Ioannis Scythopolitani’s *Prolegomena et scholia in Dionysii Areopagitae librum De divinis nominibus, de Gruyter, edited by Beate Regina Suchla, Berlin, 2011, p. 188, lines 9–35 (in the critical apparatus).

• 16

  Amb. 20.2–4 (DOML 1:410–415)

• 17

  Amb. 20.4–5 (DOML 1:413–417). cf. Zigabenos, Commentary on 2 Corinthians: ‘Although Paul appeared to be living on earth, he was engaged in a friendly contest with the angels and thus was raised up to the third heaven’, edited by Kalogeras, Ἑρμηνεία, 2:479; and St John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St Paul the Apostle 2.8: ‘Let us consider the honours bestowed upon Paul. He was caught up into heaven, as far as the third heaven, and made a partaker of unspeakable words which it is not permitted for a man to utter (2 Cor 1:2–4). He deserved this honour because he walked upon the earth as though in the company of angels. ‘Clothed in a mortal body, he was an angel through his purity and, despite human frailty, strove to be as angelic as the powers on high’ (SC 300:156). Placing Paul amongst the angels is not inconsistent with the testimony of the apostle’s epistles, which describe a cosmos populated by multiple levels of angelic beings. In Rom 8:38–39, Paul mentions ‘angels, principalities, powers, heights and depths’, which are the names of various heavenly powers. He is confident that Christ’s victory will be over ‘every principal, authority and power’ (1 Cor 15:24), terms which also designate various angelic hosts. His references to ‘the elements of the world’ (Gal 4:3; Col 2:20) also point to ruling spirits, possibly linked to the planetary spheres (cf. Eph 2:2). In 1 Cor 2:6 he refers to ‘the rulers of this age’, whose ‘god’ is a demonic power (cf. 2 Cor 4:4), whilst Satan himself can disguise himself as ‘an angel of light’ (2 Cor 11:14).

• 18

  Amb. 20.5 (DOML 1:416–417).

• 19

  Amb. 20.6–7 (DOML 1:417–419).

• 20

  Saint Nichita Stithatul, Gnostic Treatises 44 (Φιλοκαλία 3:336–337); id., Practical and Theological Treatises 104 (Φιλοκαλία 3:254); Saint Macarius, On the Freedom of the Mind 23 (Φιλοκαλία 3:230; PG 34:957B); and Saint Callistus the Patriarch, On Prayer 45, 49 (Φιλοκαλία 4:329, 332). See also Neil of Ancyra, Discourse on Voluntary Poverty 27: ‘Perfect prayer is the rapture of the mind and the complete cessation of sensory perception, and that is why Paul, when ‘he was caught up to the third heaven, did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body’ (2 Cor 12:2). The same thing happened to him when ‘he was praying in the temple and fell into a trance’ (Acts 22:17–18) and heard the divine voice through the inner sense of his heart, for the sense of hearing, together with all the other bodily senses, ceases during the experience of ecstasy’ (PG 79:1004B), quoted by Saint Gregory Palamas in Triad 1.3.18.

• 21

  Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 4.13, in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De Divinis Nominibus, edited by Beate Regina Suchla, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1990, p. 159, lines 9–14.

• 22

  ‘Prologue to the Scholia on Dionysius’ [Prologue to the Scholia on Saint Dionysius] (PG 4:21A), quoted in P. Rorem and John J. Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998, p. 148.

• 23

  ‘Scholion on the Celestial Hierarchy’ (PG 4:200D), quoted in Paul Rorem and John Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, p. 158.

• 24

  A passage in St Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 3.2, has been thought to allude to the Dormition of the Mother of God; cf. Paul Rorem and Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, pp. 199–200; and Francesca Dell’acqua, ‘Fr. Pseudo-Dionysius and the Dormition of the Virgin’, in Pseudo-Dionysius and Christian Visual Culture, c. 500–900, edited by Francesca Dell’acqua and Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2020, pp. 239–282.

• 25

  Wenger, L’Assomption, 374, n. 1 (cited below, n. 26), sees in this an echo of Byzantine speculation regarding the location of the earthly paradise. The earth is surrounded by the waters of the ocean, beyond which lies paradise, although others have placed paradise in Africa, near the source of the Nile, considered to be one of the four rivers of paradise; cf. St Basil the Great, On Paradise (PG 30:64B). See also J. Daniélou, ‘Terre et Paradis chez les Pères de l’Église’, in Eranos Jahrbuch 22 (1953), pp. 433–472; and Wenger, Ciel ou Paradis (cited above, n. 3).

• 26

  Dionysius lists nine choirs of angels, organised into three orders; the seraphim constitute the third choir of angels, not the third order; the Geometer’s terminology is inconsistent here.

• 27

  John the Geometer, The Life of the Mother of God 14–15, edited by Antoine Wenger, in The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Byzantine Tradition from the 6th to the 10th Century. Études et documents, Institut Français d’études byzantines, Paris, 1955, pp. 372–376. Professor Christos Simelidis and I are currently working on a critical edition and an English translation of the entire text of The Life of the Mother of God.

• 28

  In Letter VI.1, written in response to someone who had read and criticised his work The Contemplation of Paradise, Saint Nichita Stithatul argues that the word ‘paradise’ does not simply refer to the physical garden planted by God for Adam and Eve, but has many meanings (πολυσήμαντος), including a more spiritual understanding of paradise (SC 81:260). Further on in the same letter (VI.8), he states that to understand the words of Holy Scripture only in a literal sense (κατὰ τὸ γράμμα νοῶν) is to understand them not at all (οὐ νενόηκας) (SC 81:268).

• 29

  Contemplation of Heaven 55 (SC 81:220).

• 30

  Ibid. 58 (SC 81:224). In Epistle IV.1, Saint Nicetas Stithatus argues that, if this experience is accessible to all, then it was also accessible to the saints, including Paul’s disciple, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, who was subsequently able to describe in detail the various orders of angels (SC 81:236). In Letter VI.8, he goes on to say that the heaven into which Paul entered is the same one into which ‘Basil the Great entered’ (SC 81:268, lines 15–16).

• 31

  Psellos played a leading role in the revival of Byzantine Neoplatonism in the 11th century and, although his philosophical writings received considerable attention from the scholastics, to the best of my knowledge, there are no studies dealing with his biblical exegesis.

• 32

  The text was edited by Paul Gautier, Michaelis Pselli Theologica I, Teubner, Leipzig, 1989, pp. 107–113.

• 33

  Edited by Hugo Rabe, Hermogenis Opera, Teubner, Leipzig, 1923, p. 253.

• 34

  See Dominic O’Meara, Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989; Th. Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1999; and Joscelyn Godwin, Harmonies of Heaven and Earth: Mysticism in Music from Antiquity to the Avant-Garde, Inner Traditions International, Rochester, 1987.

• 35

  Saint Gregory Palamas, Triad 1.1.22: ‘Our divine wisdom (theosophia) is a gift that transforms “Saul” into “Paul”, snatching him from the earth to the “third heaven”, where he hears “things which cannot be told” (2 Cor 12:2)”, in Grégoire Palamas, Défense des saints hésychastes, edited by Jean Meyendorff, Louvain, 1973, 1:61, lines 22–28.

• 36

  For an overview of the controversy, see Robert E. Sinkewicz, ‘Gregory Palamas’, in La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, edited by Carmello Giuseppe Conticello and Vassa Conticello, Brepols, Turnhout, 2002, pp. 132–137.

• 37

  In Triad 2.3.24, Paul is described as “the most divine initiator… in that he rose above nature and saw ‘things unseen’ and heard ‘what cannot be heard’ (cf. 2 Cor 12:4)”, edition edited by Meyendorff, 1:435, lines 13–17. Palamas also recognises other models for the deified life, such as Melchizedek, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah and Saint Stephen, but the principal archetype is Paul (Triad 3.3.8, 1.3.25, 1.3.30–31).

• 38

  See Triades 1.1.22; 1.3.5, 16, 18, 24; 2.1.44; 2.2.13, 28; 2.3.24, 26–27, 37, 56; 3.1.38; and the comments by Gregoras, Antirrhetic 1.2.2, edited by Hans-Veit Beyer, Vienna, 1976, pp. 245, 251.

• 39

  In 2 Corinthians 12:4, Paul speaks only of ‘hearing’ and makes no mention of ‘seeing’, although he refers to ‘visions’ at the beginning of the account (2 Corinthians 12:1).

• 40

  Triad 2.3.24 (Meyendorff, 2:435–37); cf. Saint Gennadius Scholarius, Answers to the Questions of George, Despot of Serbia 14: ‘Paul is in doubt as to whether this happened “in the body or out of the body”, not because he suspected that his body had been taken up together with his soul into paradise, for he knew that this was not possible at that time, since the body was still subject to corruption; but when it becomes incorruptible, luminous and resplendent, just as the body of Christ was after the Resurrection, then it will be taken up into heavenly paradise, which is the place of the blessed. But he asks himself: ‘Was the soul separated from the body, leaving the body dead until the soul, by a miracle, was to return to it, or did the soul remain within the body?’ But he was ‘caught up into heaven’ and was both naturally in the body and in heaven according to his activity (κατ’ ἐνέργειαν), so that the mysteries of heaven might be revealed for the benefit of the world’, in Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, edited by Louis Petit et al., Paris, 1935, 4:209–210.

• 41

  Triad 3.1.38, edited by Jean Meyendorff, 2:635, lines 2–3.

• 42

  Triads 3.1.38; 3.1.40; 3.2.1, edited by Jean Meyendorff, 2:633, 637, 642. It is worth noting that in Triad 3.1.38 and 3.2.1, Palamas quotes Saint Macarius, On the Freedom of the Mind (PG 34:957AB), linking Paul’s vision of the divine light with his ascension to the third heaven, and presenting the divine light as the cause of the apostle’s transport to heaven. He does the same in Antirrhetic against Gregoras 5.6.23, edited by Panagiotis K. Chrestou, EPE 6:146.

• 43

  See Triad 3.1.11, edited by Meyendorff, 2:577–79; and id., 150 Chapters 147, edited by Robert E. Sinkewicz, Toronto, 1988, p. 253.

• 44

  Triad 1.3.10–11 / edited by Meyendorff, 1:129–33.

• 45

  Triad 3.1.38 / edited by Meyendorff, 1:129–33.

• 46

  The Triad 1.3.16; edited by Meyendorff, 1:143.

• 47

  Triad 2.3.26; edited by Meyendorff, 2:439; cf. Saint Gregory Palamas, Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite 45, edited by Chrestou, EPE 3:344; and, Antiretica against Akindynos 5.2.4–5 / edited by Chrestou, EPE 6:118–22, for an extensive discussion of this issue.

• 48

  See M. L. Mattox, ‘Martin Luther’s Reception of Paul’, in A Companion to Paul in the Reformation, edited by R. Ward Holder, Brill, 2009, pp. 93–128; R. Morgan, ‘Paul’s Enduring Legacy’ in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, edited by James D.G. Dunn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 251–254; and Th. P. Schnelle, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen’s Commentary on Romans. Notre Dame University Press, South Bend, 2008, pp. 173–204.

• 49

  A. Schweitzer’s classic study, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Tübingen, 1931; the 1968 English translation was a response to the Lutheran emphasis on justification by faith. Pauline ‘mysticism’ is generally referred to today as ‘participation in Christ’; on this, see James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2006, pp. 390–412.

• 50

  Insightful readings: Galatians 2:2; Ephesians 3:3–5; Acts 9:3–7, 16:9–10, 18:9–11, 22:17–21, 23:11, 27:23–24); miracles: 14:3, 8, 10; 15:12; 16:25–26; 19:11–12; 20:9–12; XXVIII, 3–6; the indwelling of Christ the Saviour: Romans VIII, 9; cf. Philippians III, 17; Colossians 3:15; the indwelling of the Spirit: Romans 5:5, 8:9, 11, 15–16, 26–27; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19; Acts 9:17, 13:9; Grace and transformation: Galatians 2:19–20, 3:26–28; 1 Corinthians 6:17; 2 Corinthians 3:17–18, 4:4–6; union with Christ: Romans 6:3–11, 6:22, 12:2; Galatians 2:19–20, 3:26–28; Ephesians 1:10, 2:5–6; Philippians 1:21, 2:5, 3:9; Colossians 1:24, 2:11–13, 3:1–4; 2 Timothy 2:11–13.