Irenaeus of Lyons · a new plain-English translation from the original language
... to man in his frailty, lest he should ever grow inflated and slip away from the truth, writing thus to the Corinthians in his second letter to them: lest an excess of revelations should puff me up beyond measure, a thorn was given me in my flesh, an emissary of Satan sent to strike me. Concerning this matter I pleaded with the Lord on three separate occasions that it be taken away from me; and he answered me, my favor suffices for you, for strength reaches its fullness within frailty. All the more gladly, then, will I boast in my own frailties, so that Christ's strength might take up residence in me. What follows from this? [text obscure here] Did the Lord truly wish his own Apostle to be handled in such a manner, and to bear such frailty? So the text affirms — for strength comes to fullness within frailty, this making the man better, since through his own frailty he arrives at knowledge of God's strength. For how else could man have discovered that he is by nature frail and mortal, while God alone is deathless and mighty, had he not come to know by experience the truth of each? For a man's learning his own weakness by endurance is no evil thing; rather it is even good, so as not to err about his own nature. But to be exalted against God, and to assume presumption of one's own glory, rendering man ungrateful, brought much evil — and it would have stripped him at once of both truth and love, and of that love which is owed to him who made him. But the experience of both conditions instilled in him a true knowledge of God and of man, and increased his love toward God. And where love is increased, there the glory of God is made greater by the power at work in those who love him.
Thus they reject God's might, giving no thought to what the passage actually conveys, fixing their gaze solely on the frailty of the flesh while disregarding the might of him who restores it from death. For if what is mortal is not given life, and the corruptible is not called back to incorruption, then God is no longer powerful. But since he is powerful in all these things, we ought to consider our own beginning: that God took mud from the earth and formed man. And indeed it is much more difficult and incredible to make, out of bones and sinews and veins and the rest of the human constitution that did not exist, something so as to bring it into being — and moreover to make man an animate and rational being — than it is, once made and afterward dissolved into the earth for the reasons we mentioned before, to restore it again, even though it has passed away into that state from which, in the beginning, man not yet made, was made. For he who in the beginning made what did not exist to exist, when he willed it, will much more restore again, when he wills, those who have already existed, into that life which is given by him. And the flesh will be found to be receptive and capable of the power of God, since from the beginning it received the artistry of God: one part was made an eye that sees, another an ear that hears, another a hand that touches and works, another sinews stretched throughout and holding the members together, another arteries and veins, the channels of blood and breath, another the various internal organs, another blood, the bond joining soul and body. What then? It is beyond number to describe the whole structure that corresponds to the members of man, which was made by no small wisdom of God. And those who share in the wisdom of the Lord share also in his power.
The flesh, therefore, is not without a share in the wisdom and power of God. For his power, which grants life, is made perfect in weakness, that is, in the flesh. But let those who say the flesh is not capable of that life which is given by God tell us this: are they living now, and do they say they share in life, or do they in fact confess that, having no life at all, they are presently dead? And if indeed they are dead, how is it that they move and speak and do the other things that belong not to the dead but to the living? But if they are alive now, and their whole body shares in life, how do they dare to say that the flesh does not share in life, while confessing that they have life in the present? It is as though one were to hold up a saturated sponge, or a burning brand, and insist that the sponge cannot share in the water it holds, nor the brand in the flame that lights it. In the same way these people, saying that they live and that they carry life, and exulting in their own members, afterward contradict themselves by saying that their own members are not capable of receiving life. But if this present, temporal life — though far weaker than that eternal life — is nevertheless powerful enough to give life to our mortal members, why will not that eternal life give life to flesh which has already learned and become accustomed to bearing life? That the flesh does share in life is shown by the very fact that it lives: for it lives to the extent that God wills it to live. And that God is able to grant it life is manifest. For it is he who gives life to us while we live; and so the Lord, being able to grant life to that which he himself has made, and the flesh being suited to receive life, what then stands in the way of its obtaining that incorruption — life granted by God, everlasting and without limit?