Lectio 7 Lecture 7 Lex mediatorem exspectat The law awaits the mediator ^3:19 Quid igitur lex? Propter transgressiones posita est donec veniret semen, cui promiserat, ordinata per angelos in manu mediatoris. [n. 162] ^3:19 Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. [n. 162] ^3:20 Mediator autem unius non est: Deus autem unus est. [n. 169] ^3:20 Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one. [n. 169] 162. Postquam ostendit Apostolus et auctoritate Scripturae et consuetudine humana, quod lex iustificare non potuit, hic movet duas dubitationes et solvit. Secunda dubitatio incipit ibi lex ergo adversus promissa Dei, et cetera. 162. After showing by the authority of Scripture and by a human custom that the law was unable to make one just, the Apostle now raises two questions and solves them. The second question begins at was the law then against the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Circa primum tria facit. With respect to the first, he does three things. Primo movet dubitationem; First, he raises the question; secundo solvit, ibi propter transgressiones, etc.; second, he solves it, at it was set because of transgressions; tertio quoddam in solutione positum manifestat, ibi mediator autem, et cetera. third, he elucidates something he presupposed in the course of his solution, at now a mediator. 163. Potest autem esse dubium ex praemissis tale: si lex iustificare non poterat, an esset omnino inutilis. Et hanc dubitationem movet, dicens quid igitur lex, etc., sit, id est, ad quid lex utilis fuit? Et hanc punctuationem magis approbat Augustinus ut habetur in Glossa, quam aliam quae sibi primitus melior videbatur, ut distinguatur: quid igitur? Et postea dicatur: lex propter transgressiones, et cetera. 163. The question which might arise from the foregoing is this: if the law was unable to justify, was the law without purpose? This question he raises when he says, why then was the law? i.e., what purpose did it serve? This is the punctuation which, as a Gloss says, Augustine favors, although earlier he approved the reading, what then? followed by, the law was set up because of transgressions. Similis dubitatio proponitur Rom. III, 1 ubi sic dicitur: quid igitur amplius Iudaeo, et cetera. In Romans, a similar question is raised: what advantage then does the Jew have, or what is the profit of circumcision? (Rom 3:1). 164. Deinde cum dicit propter transgressiones, solvit dubitationem motam, ubi quatuor facit. 164. Then when he says, it was set because of transgressions, he solves the question. Here he does four things. Primo proponit legis utilitatem; First, he sets down the purpose of the law; secundo legis fructum, ibi donec veniret semen, etc.; second, the fruit of the law, at until the seed should come; tertio legis ministros, ibi ordinata per angelos; third, the ministers of the law, at being ordained by angels; quarto legis Dominium, ibi in manu mediatoris. fourth, the Lord of the law, at in the hand of a mediator. 165. Circa primum notandum est, quod lex vetus data est propter quatuor, secundum quatuor ex peccato consecuta, quae enumerat Beda, scilicet propter malitiam, infirmitatem, concupiscentiam et ignorantiam. 165. With respect to the first, it should be noted that the old law was given for a fourfold purpose, corresponding to the four consequences of sin enumerated by Bede, namely, because of wickedness, weakness, passion, and ignorance. Est ergo lex primo data ad reprimendam malitiam, dum scilicet prohibendo peccatum et puniendo, retrahebantur homines a peccato, et hoc tangit dicens propter transgressiones posita est lex, id est, ad transgressiones cohibendas: et de hoc habetur I Tim. I, 9: iusto lex non est posita, sed iniustis. Cuius ratio potest sumi a Philosopho in IV Ethicorum. Homines enim bene dispositi ex seipsis moventur ad bene agendum, et sufficiunt eis paterna monita, unde non indigent lege: sed, sicut Rom. II, 14 dicitur, ipsi sibi sunt lex, habentes opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis. Sed homines male dispositi indigent retrahi a peccatis per poenas. Et ideo quantum ad istos fuit necessaria legis positio, quae habet coarctativam virtutem. Hence the law was given first of all to suppress wickedness, since by forbidding sin and by punishing, it restrained men from sin. This he touches on when he says, the law was set because of transgressions, i.e., to prevent them. On this point it is said: the law is not made for the just man but for the unjust (1 Tim 1:9). The reason for this can be taken from Ethics IV of the Philosopher. For men who are well disposed, are inclined to act well of themselves, so that fatherly admonitions are enough for them: hence they do not need a law; indeed, as it is said, they are a law to themselves who show the work of the law written in their hearts (Rom 2:14). But men who are ill disposed need to be kept from sin by penalties. Hence with respect to such men it was necessary to set down a law which has power to constrain. Secundo, lex data est ad infirmitatem manifestandam. Homines enim de duobus praesumebant. Primo quidem de scientia, secundo de potentia. Et ideo Deus reliquit homines absque doctrina legis, tempore legis naturae, in quo dum in errores inciderunt, convicta est eorum superbia de defectu scientiae, sed adhuc restabat praesumptio de potentia. Dicebant enim non deest qui impleat, sed deest qui iubeat, ut dicitur in Glossa super illud Ex. XXIV: quicquid praeceperit Dominus, faciemus, et erimus obedientes. Et ideo data est lex, quae cognitionem peccati faceret, per legem enim cognitio peccati, Rom. III, 20. Quae tamen auxilium gratiae non dabat ad vitandum peccata, ut sic homo sub lege constitutus et vires suas experiretur, et infirmitatem suam recognosceret, inveniens se sine gratia peccatum vitare non posse, et sic avidius quaereret gratiam. Et haec etiam causa potest ex his verbis accipi, ut dicatur, quod lex posita est propter transgressiones adimplendas, quasi illo modo loquendo quo Apostolus dicit Rom. c. V, 20: lex subintravit ut abundaret delictum; quod non est intelligendum causaliter, sed consecutive: quia lege subintrante, abundavit delictum, et transgressiones sunt multiplicatae, dum concupiscentia nondum per gratiam sanata, in id quod prohibebatur, magis exarsit, et factum est peccatum gravius, addita praevaricatione legis scriptae. Et hoc Deus permittebat, ut homines imperfectionem suam cognoscentes, quaererent mediatoris gratiam. Unde signanter dicit posita est, quasi debito ordine collocata inter legem naturae et legem gratiae. Second, the law was set down in order to disclose human weakness. For men gloried in two things: first, in their knowledge; and second, in their power. Hence God left men without the instruction of the law during the period of the law of nature, during which time, as they fell into errors, their pride was convinced of its lack of knowledge, even though they still presumed on their powers. For they said, many are willing and able, but there is no one to lead, as a Gloss says on this passage: all things that the Lord has spoken we will do. We will be obedient (Exod 24:8). And therefore the law was given which would cause a knowledge of sin, for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). But it did not give the help of grace to avoid sin, so that man, bound by the law, might test his strength and recognize his infirmity. Finding that without grace he was unable to avoid sin, he would more ardently yearn for grace. And this cause can also be derived from these words, if they are taken to mean that the law was set for the sake of filling up transgressions, in the sense in which the Apostle speaks when he says: now the law entered in that sin might abound (Rom 5:20). This is to be taken not in a causal but in a sequential sense; for after the law entered in, sin abounded and transgressions multiplied, because concupiscence, not yet healed by grace, lusted after that which was forbidden, with the result that sin became more grievous, being now a violation of a written law. But God permitted this in order that men, recognizing their own imperfection, might seek the grace of a mediator. Hence he says significantly, it was set, i.e., interposed, as it were, between the law of nature and the law of grace. Tertio, data est lex ad domandam concupiscentiam populi lascivientis, ut diversis caeremoniis fatigati neque ad idololatriam, neque ad lascivias declinarent. Unde dicit Petrus Act. XV, 10: hoc est onus, quod neque nos, et cetera. Third, the law was given in order to tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, worn out by various ceremonies, they would not fall into idolatry or lewdness. Hence Peter says: this is a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear (Acts 15: 10). Quarto, ad instruendum ignorantiam data est lex in figuram futurae gratiae, secundum illud Hebr. X, 1: umbram habens lex, et cetera. Fourth, the law was given as a figure of future grace in order to instruct the ignorant: for the law, having a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1). 166. Deinde cum dicit donec veniret semen, etc., id est Christus, de quo promiserat Deus, per eum benedicendas omnes gentes. Matth. XI, 13: lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, et cetera. Gen. XII: in semine tuo, et cetera. 166. Then he sets forth the fruit of the law when he says, until the seed should come, i.e., Christ, of whom God had promised that through him all nations would be blessed: for all the prophets and the law prophesied until John (Matt 11:13); in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen 22:18). 167. Ministri autem legis ponuntur, cum dicit ordinata, id est, ordinanter data, per angelos, id est, per nuntios Dei, scilicet Moysen et Aaron. Mal. II, 7: legem requirent ex ore eius, et cetera. angelus enim Domini, et cetera. Vel per angelos, id est, ministerio angelorum. Act. VII, 35: accepistis legem in dispositionem angelorum, et cetera. Et est data per angelos, quia lex non debebat dari per Filium, qui maior est. Hebr. II, 2: si enim, qui per angelos factus est sermo, et cetera. 167. The ministers of the law are mentioned when he says, ordained, i.e., given in good order, by angels, i.e., the messengers of God, namely, Moses and Aaron: they shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts (Mal 2:7). Or: by angels, i.e., by the ministry of angels: you have received the law by the disposition of angels (Acts 7:53). And it was given by angels, because it was not fitting that it be given by the Son, who is greater: for if the word spoken by angels became steadfast (Heb 2:2). Dicit autem ordinata, quia ordinabiliter data est, scilicet inter tempus legis naturalis, qua homines convicti sunt, quod se iuvare non poterant, et tempus gratiae. Nam antequam gratiam acciperent, convincendi erant de lege. Furthermore, he says ordained, because it was given in proper sequence, namely, between the time of the law of nature, during which men were convinced they could not help themselves, and the time of grace. For before they should receive grace, they had to be convicted by the law. 168. Dominus autem legis dicitur Christus. Et ideo dicit in manu mediatoris, id est, in potestate Christi. Deut. XXXIII, 2: in dextera eius ignea lex. I Tim. II, 5: mediator Dei et hominum, et cetera. 168. The Lord of the law is Christ; hence he says, in the hand of a mediator, i.e., in the power of Christ: in his right hand a fiery law (Deut 33:2); there is one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). Iste mediator significatus est per Moysen, in cuius manu est lex data. Deut. V, 5: ego sequester et medius fui inter Deum et vos, et cetera. This mediator was represented by Moses in whose hand the law was given: I was the mediator, and stood between the Lord and you at that time (Deut 5:5). 169. Deinde, cum dicit mediator autem, etc., exponit quod dixit in manu mediatoris, quod potest tripliciter exponi. 169. Then when he says, now a mediator is not of one, he explains what he meant when he said, in the hand of a mediator. This can be explained in three ways. Uno modo, quia mediator non est unius tantum, sed duorum. Unde cum iste sit mediator Dei et hominis, oportet quod sit Deus et homo. Si enim esset purus homo, vel Deus tantum, non esset verus mediator. Si ergo est verus Deus, cum nullus est mediator sui ipsius, posset videri alicui, quod praeter ipsum sunt alii dii quorum est mediator; et hoc removet, dicens quod mediator iste et si non est unius tantum, non propter hoc sunt alii dii, sed Deus unus est, quia licet ipse alius sit in persona a Deo Patre, non est tamen aliud in natura. Deut. VI, 4: audi, Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, et cetera. Eph. IV, 6: unus Deus, et cetera. In one way, that a mediator is not of one alone but of two. Hence, since he is the mediator of God and men, it was fitting that he be God and man. For were he purely man or solely God, he would not be a true mediator. Therefore, if he is true God, then since no one is his own mediator, someone might suppose that there are, besides him, other gods of whom he was the mediator. But this he forestalls when he says that although this mediator is not of one only, there are not on that account other gods, but God is one, because, although he is distinct in person from God the Father, he is not distinct in nature: hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:4); one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:6). Secundo modo, quia posset credi, quod iste esset mediator Iudaeorum tantum, ideo dicit: dico quod Christus est mediator, sed non unius, scilicet Iudaeorum, sed unus est omnium, id est, sufficiens ad omnes reconciliandos Deo, quia ipse Deus est. Rom. III, 30: unus Deus qui iustificavit circumcisionem ex fide, et praeputium per fidem, et cetera. II Cor. V, v. 19: Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi, et cetera. In a second way, because someone might believe that he was the mediator of the Jews alone, he says: I say that Christ is mediator; but not of one, i.e., of the Jews, but one of all, i.e., capable of reconciling everyone to God, because he is God: for it is one God who justifies circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith (Rom 3:30); for God indeed was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19). Tertio modo, quia non est mediator unius populi tantum, scilicet Iudaeorum, sed etiam gentilium. Eph. II, 14: ipse est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum. Et hoc ex parte gentium auferendo idololatriam, et ex parte Iudaeorum observantiam legis. In a third way, namely, that he is not a mediator of only one people, namely, the Jews, but of the gentiles as well: for he is our peace, who has made both one (Eph 2:14); on the part of the gentiles by taking away idolatry, and on the part of the Jews by delivering them from the observances of the law. Specialiter autem mediator est Filius, non Pater, non Spiritus Sanctus, nihilominus tamen unus est Deus. Specifically it is not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, but the Son who is mediator; nevertheless, God is one. Lectio 8 Lecture 8 Lex peadagogus erat The law was a pedagogue ^3:21 Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei? Absit. Si enim data esset lex, quae posset vivificare, vere ex lege esset justitia. [n. 170] ^3:21 Was the law then against the promises of God: God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law. [n. 170] ^3:22 Sed conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato, ut promissio ex fide Jesu Christi daretur credentibus. [n. 173] ^3:22 But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. [n. 173] ^3:23 Prius autem quam veniret fides, sub lege custodiebamur conclusi in eam fidem quae revelanda erat. [n. 175] ^3:23 But before the faith came, we were kept shut up under the law, unto that faith which was to be revealed. [n. 175]