Lectio 2 Lecture 2 Apostolus gentibus Apostle to the gentiles ^2:6 ab iis autem, qui videbantur esse aliquid (quales aliquando fuerint, nihil mea interest: Deus personam hominis non accipit): mihi enim qui videbantur esse aliquid, nihil contulerunt. [n. 64] ^2:6 But of them who seemed to be something, (what they were at one time is nothing to me: God does not accept the person of man): for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing. [n. 64] ^2:7 Sed e contra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium praeputii, sicut et Petro circumcisionis [n. 70] ^2:7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. [n. 70] ^2:8 (qui enim operatus est Petro in apostolatum circumcisionis, operatus est et mihi inter gentes): [n. 72] ^2:8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the gentiles.) [n. 72] ^2:9 et cum cognovissent gratiam, quae data est mihi, Jacobus, et Cephas, et Joannes, qui videbantur columnae esse, dextras dederunt mihi, et Barnabae societatis: ut nos in gentes, ipsi autem in circumcisionem: [n. 73] ^2:9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: [n. 73] ^2:10 tantum ut pauperum memores essemus, quod etiam sollicitus fui hoc ipsum facere. [n. 75] ^2:10 Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do. [n. 75] 64. Ostenso quod Apostolus in nullo recessit a sententia sua in collatione praedicta, hic consequenter ostendit quod nihil suae doctrinae per alios apostolos superadditum fuit. Et 64. Having shown that the Apostle did not depart from his opinion on any point in the conference mentioned above, he now shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. circa hoc duo facit. About this he does two things. Primo enim describit conditionem apostolorum, nihil ei addere valentium; First, he describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything; secundo prosequitur propositum, ibi mihi enim qui, et cetera. second, he proves his proposition, at for to me. Conditionem autem illorum describit ex tribus. Their status he describes from three standpoints. 65. Primo ex auctoritate quam habebant in Ecclesia, quae est magna. Et quantum ad hoc dicit ab his autem, et cetera. 65. First from the authority they held in the Church, for it was great. Regarding it he says, but of them. Littera defectiva est, unde debet suppleri sic ab his autem, scilicet Petro et Ioanne; quasi dicat: licet ad horam cesserim eis, nihil tamen accepi ab eis potestatis vel doctrinae. Et si ab his nihil accepi, multo minus ab aliis. The text is deficient and should be amended to read, but of them, namely, Peter and John. As if to say: although I would have yielded to them at the time, yet I received from them no new power or teaching. And if I received nothing from them, much less so from others. Sed notandum est quod hoc quod dicit qui videbantur aliquid esse, si hoc intelligatur secundum gratiam Dei quae in ipsis erat, sic verum est quod secundum hanc magni erant, quia quos iustificavit, hos et magnificavit, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, 30. Si vero intelligantur aliquid esse secundum seipsos, sic falsum est, quia secundum hoc nihil erant. Nam si secundum se aliquid esse viderentur, semper fuissent magni; quia quod per se inest, semper inest. Unde cum non fuerint semper magni, non secundum se videbantur aliquid esse. But it is to be noted that if his statement, who seemed to be something, is understood with reference to the grace of God that was in them, it is true that in this respect they were great, because whom he justified, them he also glorified (Rom 8:30). However, if it is understood that they were something according to themselves, then it is false, because in that respect they were nothing. For if they seemed to be something according to themselves, they would always have been great, because whatever belongs to a thing according to itself is always present. Hence, since they were not always great, it was not according to themselves that they were seen to be something. 66. Secundo describit eorum conditionem ex statu eorum ante conversionem, quam habuerunt in synagoga. Et hunc statum caute ostendit fuisse abiectum et vilem. Unde dicit quales aliquando fuerint, quia rustici, pauperes, idiotae, et sine litteris erant. I Cor. I, 26: non multi sapientes secundum carnem, et cetera. Sed quales fuerint nihil, id est non, mea interest, scilicet referre. 66. Second, he describes their status on the side of what they were before their conversion, i.e., the status they had in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was mean and lowly. Hence he says, what they were at one time, for they had been coarse, poor, ignorant and unlettered: there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble (1 Cor 1:26). But what they were is nothing to me, i.e., it is not my concern to mention. Et hoc forte introducit, ut considerantes statum quem illi habuerunt in synagoga (qui nullus fuit) et statum Pauli (qui magnus fuit), manifeste cognoscant quod Paulus in sententia quantum ad legalia sit eis praeferendus, et praesertim cum Paulus in statu Ecclesiae Christi eis aequaretur, ita quod Paulus eos in statu synagogae ante conversionem praecedebat, in statu post conversionem eis aequalis erat. Unde cum agebatur de synagoga, magis erat standum sententiae Pauli, quam aliorum; sed cum de Evangelio ageretur, standum erat sententiae suae sicut sententiae aliorum. Et sicut alii non erant magni per legalia, sed per Christum, sic et Apostolus per Christum magnus erat in fide, et non per legalia. Perhaps his reason for introducing this was that by considering the status they had in the synagogue, which was nothing, and the status of Paul, which was great, they might see that Paul’s opinion on legalism should be preferred to theirs, particularly since Paul has an equal status with them in the Church; so that Paul had a higher rank in the synagogue before their conversion, but after the conversion, he had a rank equal to theirs. Hence when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, the opinion of Paul deserved to prevail over the others, but when it came to the Gospel, his opinion was as good as theirs. And just as the others were not made great through things pertaining to the law but through Christ, so too in the faith the Apostle was great through Christ and not through things pertaining to the law. 67. Tertio describit eorum conditionem ex divina electione, et quantum ad hoc dicit Deus enim personam, etc., quasi dicat: ideo magni sunt, quia Deus eos magnificavit, non attendens ad merita vel demerita eorum, sed ad ipsum quod facere intendit. Et ideo dicit Deus personam hominis non accipit, id est, non considerat magnam vel parvam. Sap. VI, 8: pusillum et magnum ipse fecit, et cetera. Sed sine personarum acceptione ad salutem omnes vocat, non imputans illis delicta eorum, et hoc quia transierunt. II Cor. V, 17: vetera transierunt, et cetera. Ps. XV, 4: nec memor ero nominum eorum, et cetera. Et ideo dicit Petrus, Act. X, 34: in veritate comperi, quod non est personarum acceptio, et cetera. 67. Third, he describes their condition by reason of their election by God. Regarding this he says, God does not accept the person. As if to say: they are great because God made them great, not by regarding their merits or demerits, but by regarding what he intended to accomplish. Hence he says: God does not accept the person of man, i.e., he does not consider whether the person is great or little: for he made the little and the great (Wis 6:8). Furthermore, without regard to person, he calls everyone to salvation, no longer charging them with their sins for they have passed away: the old things are passed away (2 Cor 5:17); nor will I be mindful of their name (Ps 16:4). Therefore Peter says: in very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). 68. Circa hoc sciendum est, quod accipere personam proprie est in aliquo negotio attendere, quasi regulam ipsius negotii, conditionem personae nihil facientem ad negotium, puta, cum ideo do beneficium alicui, quia est nobilis, sive pulcher. Nobilitas enim seu pulchritudo, nil facit ad hoc, quod habeat beneficium. Si vero conditio personae facit ad negotium, sic considerando illam conditionem in facto illo, non accipio personam; sicut si ideo do beneficium alicui, quia bonus est, et bene deserviet Ecclesiae, quia bene litteratus et honestus, non sum acceptor personae. Nihil ergo est proprie accipere personam, quam considerare conditionem personae, nil facientem ad negotium. 68. On this point it should be noted that accepting of persons in any transaction is, properly speaking, to take as a deciding factor in that transaction some aspect of the person that has nothing to do with the matter; for example, when I give a benefice to a person just because he is a noble or is handsome. For nobility or beauty have nothing to do with the question of getting a benefice. But if some aspect of the person does have something to do with the matter, then if I consider that aspect in settling the matter, I do not accept the person; for example, if I give a benefice to a person because he is good and will serve the Church well, or because he is well-educated and honorable, I am not an acceptor of persons. Therefore to accept the person is nothing other than to consider some aspect of the person that has no relation to the business. Cum ergo Deus in operibus suis et beneficiis nihil praeexistens ex parte creaturae respiciat, quia ipsum, quod est creaturae, est effectus suae electionis, sed respiciat solum quasi pro regula beneplacitum voluntatis suae secundum quam omnia operatur, et non secundum aliquam conditionem personae, ut dicitur Ephes. IV, 7, manifestum est quod non accipit personam hominis. Hence, since God in his works and benefits regards nothing that pre-exists on the side of the creature, for that which pertains to the creature is an effect of his election, but takes as his measure merely what pleases his will, according to which he effects all things, and not the condition of their person, as is said in Ephesians (Eph 1:11), it is evident that he does not regard the person of man. 69. Consequenter descripta conditione eorum, ostendit propositum, scilicet quod nil ei addere potuerunt. Et ideo dicit mihi enim qui videbantur aliquid esse, nihil contulerunt, quasi dicat: licet essent magnae auctoritatis, tamen nil addiderunt doctrinae meae nec potestati, quia, sicut supra dictum est neque ab homine accepi Evangelium, neque per hominem didici. 69. Then, having described their condition, he proves his proposition, namely, that they were unable to add anything to him. Hence he says, for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing. As if to say: although they had great authority, they added nothing to my teaching or to my power, because, as was said above, I neither received the Gospel from man nor learned it by man. Glossa autem aliter legit quales aliquando fuerunt, etc., quasi dicat: non pertinet ad me referre statum eorum ante conversionem, quales scilicet fuerunt, quia et hoc nihil refert, cum et ego fuerim ipsius Ecclesiae etiam persecutor, et tamen Deus suae beneplacito voluntatis elegit me et magnificavit, et hoc quia Dominus personam hominis non acceptat. However, a certain Gloss has a different reading, namely, what they were at one time is nothing to me. As if to say: it is not my concern to recount their status before their conversion, i.e., what they were, because this too makes no difference, since I myself had even been a persecutor of that Church; yet God by the pleasure of his will chose and glorified me—and this because the Lord does not regard the person of man. 70. Consequenter cum dicit sed e contra cum vidissent, etc., ostendit quomodo eius sententia sit approbata ab apostolis. Et 70. Then when he says, but contrariwise, when they had seen, he shows how his opinion was approved by the apostles. circa hoc tria facit. About this he does three things. Primo ponit causam approbationis; First, he gives the reason for this approbation; secundo insinuat ipsam approbationem, ibi Iacobus et Cephas, et cetera. second, he mentions the approbation, at James and Cephas; Tertio addit quamdam conditionem approbationi interpositam, ibi tantum ut pauperes, et cetera. third, he adds a condition that was placed on the approbation, at only that we should be mindful. Causam autem approbationis (quae movit Apostolos approbare sententiam Apostoli) ponit duplicem, scilicet praedicationis officium Apostolo iniunctum a Christo, et effectum iniuncti officii, ibi et cum cognovissent, et cetera. He cites the two causes of the approbation (which moved the apostles to approve the opinion of the Apostle) namely, the office of teaching enjoined by Christ on the Apostle, and the effect of this appointment, at and when they had known. Circa primum, primo ponit officium iniunctum quod movit eos ad approbandum; As to the first, he does two things: first, he mentions the office to which he was appointed which moved them to approve him; secundo officii manifestationem, ibi qui enim operatus est, et cetera. second, the manifestation of this office, at for he who wrought. 71. Dicit ergo: dico quod illi qui videbantur aliquid esse, nihil mihi contulerunt, sed potius, contra opinionem adversariorum, qui ascenderant contra me in Ierusalem ad apostolos pro ipsa quaestione, me ipsi apostoli approbaverunt, et hoc cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium, id est, officium praedicationis, praeputii, id est, iniunctum praedicare incircumcisis, scilicet gentibus. Ier. IX, 26: omnes gentes habent praeputium, omnis autem domus, et cetera. Sicut Petro commissa est auctoritas, ut praedicaret Iudaeis tantum, et Paulo gentibus; sed postmodum et Petrus praedicavit gentibus, et Paulus Iudaeis. 71. He says therefore: I say that those who seemed to be something, added nothing to me; but rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me in this matter, it was I that the apostles approved, and this when they had seen that to me was committed the Gospel, i.e., the office of the preaching, of the uncircumcision, i.e., the injunction to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, the gentiles: for all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart (Jer 9:26). Just as to Peter was entrusted the authority to preach to the Jews alone, so to Paul to the gentiles; but later, Peter, too, preached to the gentiles and Paul to the Jews. 72. Sed quia aliquis posset dicere: unde constat nobis quod tibi sit commissum Evangelium in gentibus? Ideo interponens dicit, quod per operationes Christi. Sicut enim patet quod Petrus accepit Evangelium a Christo propter mirabilia quae Christus fecit per eum, ita patet quod ego ab ipso accepi propter miracula quae Christus operatus est, et operatur in me. 72. But because someone might say: what evidence have you that the commission to preach the Gospel to the gentiles was given you, he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ because of the marvels Christ wrought through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and does work in me. Et ideo dicit qui operatus est Petro, etc., id est, qui Petrum fecit apostolum in Iudaea, scilicet Christus, ipse me fecit apostolum in gentibus. Et haec est causa quae movet eos. Therefore he says, he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship, i.e., made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, also made me an apostle among the gentiles. And this is the reason which moves them. 73. Sed quia non sufficit iniunctio et auctoritas praedicandi, nisi homo per bonam scientiam et discretam eloquentiam ipsam exequatur, et per bonam vitam commendet, ideo addit usum suae auctoritatis seu officii effectum, dicens et cum cognovissent gratiam Dei, et cetera. Et est littera suspensiva, id est, cum vidissent quod gratiosa et fructuosa esset praedicatio mea, tunc Iacobus, et Cephas, et Ioannes, et cetera. 73. But because one’s appointment and authority to preach are not enough, unless he carries it out through good understanding and discrete eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority or the effect of his office, saying, and, when they had known the grace of God. This is a dependent clause, i.e., when they saw that my preaching enjoyed favor and was fruitful, then James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. 74. In quo notatur approbatio seu societas facta cum eis et Paulo. Et primo ponuntur personae inter quas facta est societas, quae sunt Iacobus, et Cephas, id est Petrus, et Ioannes. Et praemittitur Iacobus, quia erat episcopus Ierosolymorum, ubi haec facta sunt. Ioannes autem iste fuit Ioannes Evangelista, qui non deseruit Iudaeam usque ad tempus Vespasiani. 74. In this passage is mentioned the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul. First, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed, namely, James and Cephas, i.e., Peter, and John. James is mentioned first, as being the bishop of Jerusalem where these events took place. The John mentioned was John the Evangelist who did not leave Judea until the time of Vespasian. Qui videbantur columnae esse. Metaphorice dicitur hoc, id est sustentatio totius Ecclesiae. Sicut enim totum aedificium sustentatur per columnas, ita per istos tota Ecclesia Iudaeorum sustentabatur et regebatur. Et de istis columnis dicitur in Ps. LXXIV, 4: ego confirmavi columnas eius, id est, apostolos Ecclesiae; Can. V, 15: crura illius columnae marmoreae, quae fundatae sunt super bases aureas. Who seem to be pillars. This is a metaphor standing for the support of the entire Church. For just as a whole edifice is supported by the pillars, so the whole Church of the Jews was supported and governed by these men. Of those pillars it is said: I have established the pillars thereof (Ps 74:4), i.e., the apostles of the Church; his legs as pillars of marble, that are set upon bases of gold (Song 5:15).