Fray Bernardino De Sahagún (d. 1590) on Luke 22:43-44

  

According to the words of the prophetah who said Vere languores nostros, etc., he embraced great suffering the entire time he lived here on earth. He had no property, he had no possessions, he was just like a poor traveler. It was for this purpose that he lived here on earth, for according to the sacred words, Et quasi viator declinans ad manendum. Jeremias 14. This means, “Our Lord Jesucristo became a poor traveler here on earth.” (In this way his beloved ones who live impoverished here on earth will be comforted. And right when he was about to die,) he embraced great anguish; indeed, he was so greatly anguished because of the sins of his beloved ones that he sweat with blood at the time when he was praying in the walled garden. For according to the sacred words, Et factus est sudor eius, sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentis in terram, Lucae 22. This means, “Then he sweat blood, his precious blood fell dripping from all over his body; it flowed right on the ground.” With this it is clear that the afflictions of our Lord were very great; no one [else] has this happened to anywhere in the world. (O please don’t you listen, O my child! Before we were born, before we knew suffering, our captivity, our Rescuer was afflicted on our behalf, he wept on our behalf, he sweat blood.) And he also embraced that which pains people, shames people, for in this way he desired to be taken prisoner, bound, slapped in the fact, reprimanded, spat at in the face, mocked, whipped. (“Sermon in Preparation for the Passion of the Lord,” in The America’s First Sermons: The Nahuatl Sermonary of Fray Bernardino De Sahagún [trans. Ben Leeming; Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2026], 273, 275)

 

Robert of Melun (ca. 1100-1167) on Romans 3:22 and 4:4

Taken from Questiones de epistolis Pauli:

 

[Rom. 3:22] “Iustitia autem est per fidem Ihesu Christi.” Hie iterum queritur, de qua fide loquatur Apostolus. Sed manifestum est quia de fide Christi.

 

De qua queritur, utrum possit haberi a bonis et malis.

 

Et dicunt quidam, quia tides Christi est “tides operans per dilectionem”, que a nullo nisi a bono haberi potest.

 

Sed potest queri ab his, quid intelligant per fidem operantem per dilectionem, an unum an duo, id est, an fidem tantum, an fidem cum dilectione. Sunt autem duo tides et dilectio. Dilectio enim nascitur ex fide. Quod autem duo sint, manifestat Apostolus dicens : “Nunc autem manent tides, spes, caritas, tria hec, maior autem his est caritas.”

 

Ipsi tamen, similitudine inducta, hoc confirmant, quod tides operans per dilectionem nichil aliud est quam tides. ... (Charles P. Carlson, Jr., Justification in Earlier Medieval Theology [The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975], 53)

 

 

[Rom. 3:22] “But righteousness is through the faith of Jesus Christ.” Here again the question arises as to what kind of faith the Apostle is speaking of. But it is clear that he is speaking of the faith of Christ.

 

The question is whether it can be found in both good and evil people.

 

And some say that the faith of Christ is “faith working through love,” and that this can be possessed by no one except a good person.

 

But one may ask them what they mean by “faith working through love”: whether it is one thing or two—that is, whether they mean faith alone, or faith together with love. For faith and love are two things. Love is born from faith. That they are two is made clear by the Apostle when he says: “Now faith, hope, and charity abide, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”

 

Yet they, using an analogy, try to prove this point, namely that faith working through love is nothing other than faith. ...

 

 

Glossa : “Sed ei qui habet tempus operandi.” Unde, quia non excluditur hie quin et quidam habentes tempus operandi et non facultatem, ex sola fide salvantur, id est, sine operibus misericordie. Nam quod alibi [dicitur quod] tides sine operibus [non] mereatur, ad terrorem est dictum; vel de interiore opere [est] intelligendum, sine quo nemo adultus salvatur.

 

[Rom. 4:4] “Ei autem, qui operatur,” etc. Hie ostenditur quia valent opera ad merendum. Sed queritur de quibus operibus hie agat, an de interioribus, an de exterioribus. Sunt quidem exteri- ora, ut vestire pauperes, vagos et egenos inducere in domum suam, visitare infirmos et huiusmodi. Quod si agat de huiusmodi operibus, tunc multi sunt qui habent tempus operandi et non operantur, ut sunt viri contemplativi qui tantum vacant contemplationi. Unde et ipsi meriti minoris erunt quam illi qui fidem habentes huiusmodi operantur. Item, si de opere interiore agat, quod est amore, orare et huiusmodi, cum unusquisque iustificatus per fidem opera huiusmodi habeat, quomodo dicit hos per solam fidem iustificari, qui non habentes tempus operandi exeunt sine operibus. Est autem opus fidei dilectio, sine qua nemo potest exire et salvari.

 

Agit autem de his qui possunt in exterioribus operari; quibus, si aliqua necessitate preventi fuerint se huiusmodi opera faciant, “sola fides sufficit ad iustitiam." (Charles P. Carlson, Jr., Justification in Earlier Medieval Theology [The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975], 54)

 

 

Glossa: “But to him who has time to work.” Hence, because this does not exclude that even some who have the time to work but not the means are saved by faith alone, that is, without works of mercy. For what is said elsewhere, that faith without works does not merit, is said as a warning; or it must be understood of the inward work, without which no adult is saved.

 

[Rom. 4:4] “But to him who works,” etc. Here it is shown that works are effective for meriting. But it is asked what works he is speaking of here, whether inward or outward. There are outward works, such as clothing the poor, taking in the homeless and needy into one’s house, visiting the sick, and the like. But if he is speaking of such works, then there are many who have time to work and yet do not work, such as contemplative men, who devote themselves only to contemplation. Therefore they will also have less merit than those who, having faith, perform such works. Likewise, if he is speaking of inward works, such as love, prayer, and the like, then since everyone justified by faith has works of this kind, how does he say that those are justified by faith alone who, having no time to work, depart this life without works? For the work of faith is charity, without which no one can depart and be saved.

 

Rather, he is speaking of those who are able to work in outward things; and if necessity prevents them from doing such works, “faith alone suffices for righteousness.”

 

 

Hervaeus Burgidolensis (ca. 1080-1150) on Romans 4:3

 Taken from Commentaria in epistolas divi Pauli:

 

[Rom. 4:3 (MPL 181, cols. 644 f.)] Nam qui prius ex fide justificatus est in conspectu Dei, postea et ex operibus est justificatus etiam in conspectu homi- num. Unde et Jacobus apostolus in epistola sua contra eos qui nolebant bene operari, sed de sola fide praesumebant, ipsius Abrahae opera commendavit, dicens : Vis autem scire, o homo inanis, quoniam tides sine operibus otiosa est? Abraham pater noster nonne ex operibus justificatus est, offerens Isaac filium suum super altare? Nec est Jacobus in hac sententia contrarius Paulo dicenti, quia si Abraham ex operibus justificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum, ac per hoc asserenti quia non ex operibus est justificatus. Uterque enim verum dicit. Paulus quippe, commendans justitiam quippe, commendans justitiam quae ex fide est, adversus eos qui fidem negligentes, gloriabantur de justitia quae est ex operibus, dixit Abraham non esse justificatum ex operibus, sed quae fidem praecederent. Jacobus autem, ut dictum est, adversus illos qui percepta fide torpebant otio, et putabant se per eamdem fidem, utpote justificatos, posse salvari, etiam si bona opera non haberent, dixit Abraham ex operibus esse justificatum, sed quae fidem secuta sunt. Unde ut ostenderet, se non dissentire a Paulo, sed potius concordare, protinus addidit : Vides quoniam tides cooperabatur operibus illius, ut ex operibus tides consummata est, et suppleta est Scriptura, dicens : “Creditit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam (Gen. XV)”, et amicus Dei appellatus est. Et adhuc subjecit : Videtis quoniam ex operibus justificatur homo, et non ex fide tantum? Mani- festum est enim, eum loqui de operibus quae fidem subsequuntur. Quia Paulus sine praecedentibus operibus dixit, hominem solo fide posse justificari. ... [4:4 (col. 645)] Dixi, quia Abraham justus est ex fide. ... Sed qui sic justificatus est, non debet deinceps a bonis operibus torpere. Nam ei, qui post fidem quam gratis acceperit, operatur opera bona, “non imputatur merces”, id est secundum fidem tantum, sed “secundum debitum” operationis suae. Ita fit ei, qui post acceptam fidem vivit et bene operatur : non enim aliter a Domino mercedem percipit. Sed “ei qui non operatur”, id est qui postquam baptizatus est, non habet tempus operandi, vel propter infirmitatem non potest operari, quanquam velit, sed absque opere de hac vita rapitur cum fide et bona voluntate, huic nihil operanti, sed tantummodo “credenti in eum qui justificat impium”, id est sola tides sufficit ei ad justitiam ... (Charles P. Carlson, Jr., Justification in Earlier Medieval Theology [The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975], 50)

 

 

[Rom. 4:3 (MPL 181, cols. 644 f.)] For he who was first justified by faith before God was afterward also justified by works in the sight of men. Hence the apostle James too, in his epistle, against those who were unwilling to do good works but relied on faith alone, commended Abraham’s own works, saying: “Do you want to know, O empty man, that faith without works is idle? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” And James is not contrary in this statement to Paul, who says, “If Abraham was justified by works, he has glory, but not before God,” and thereby maintains that he was not justified by works. For both speak truly.

 

Paul, indeed, commending the righteousness that comes from faith, against those who, neglecting faith, boasted in the righteousness that comes from works, said that Abraham was not justified by works, but by those that preceded faith. James, however, as has been said, against those who, once faith had been received, grew lazy in idleness, and thought that by that same faith, since they had been justified, they could be saved even if they did not have good works, said that Abraham was justified by works, namely by the works that followed faith. Therefore, to show that he was not in disagreement with Paul, but rather in agreement, he immediately added: “You see that faith was working together with his works, and that by works faith was made perfect,” and the Scripture was fulfilled, saying: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15), and he was called the friend of God. And he added further: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?” For it is clear that he is speaking of works that follow faith. Paul, by contrast, said that a man can be justified by faith alone, without preceding works.

 

[4:4 (col. 645)] I said that Abraham is righteous by faith. But the one who has been justified in this way ought not afterward grow slack in good works. For to the one who, after receiving the faith freely given, performs good works, “the reward is not counted” that is, not according to faith alone, but according to the debt of his action. Thus it is for the one who, after receiving faith, lives and does good works: for he does not receive his reward from the Lord in any other way. But “to the one who does not work,” that is, to one who, after being baptized, has no time to work, or is unable to work because of weakness, although he wishes to, but is taken from this life without works, with faith and good will—this one, who does no work but only “believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,” that is, faith alone is sufficient for him unto righteousness ...

 

Glossa Ordinaria on Romans 4:1-4

  

[Rom. 4:1-4 (MPL 114, cols. 481 f.)]

 

1.“Secundum carmen.” Id est ex operibus legis. Quasi dicat : Dicemus quod fuit justus ex eis? non, quia si ex carnali observatione est justus, habet gloriam aeternam quae ex justitia sequitur : sed a se habet earn, non a Deo. Vel, haec justificatio est in opinione hominum, et non apud Deum. Ad Deum autem habet gloriam : non ergo ex operibus justificatus est, unde justificatus est? Sequitur et dicit unde, etc.

 

3. “Credidit.” Credere, sufficiens causa fuit ei justitiae, et est aliis, sed tamen qui habet tempus operandi, ei non dabitur merces secundum gratiam tantum, sed secundum debitum operationis suae; sed ei qui non habet tempus operandi, si credit, sola fides sufficit ad justitiam, et ita ad salutem secundum gratiam propositam omnibus, vel secundum quod Deus legem ante posuit.

 

4. “Ei autem,” etc. Quasi dicat : Abraham est justus ex fide: sed ei qui operatur ilia carnalia, vel aliqua bona ut gratiam mereatur, si merces est ei, non est ex gratia, sed ex meriti sui debito. Uli vero qui non facit haec carnalia vel aliqua bona, sed tantum credit, fides sufficit ad justitiam, et ita attribuit aliis quod dixit Abraham, scilicet quod si est justus ex operibus, habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum, et ideo ex fide.

 

“Secundum gratiam.” Si gratia est, gratis datur seu gratis constat. Nihil boni fecisti, et datur tibi remissio peccatorum. Attenduntur opera tua et inveni- untur omnia mala. (Charles P. Carlson, Jr., Justification in Earlier Medieval Theology [The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975], 44-45)

 

 

[Rom. 4:1-4 (MPL 114, cols. 481 f.)]

 

1. “According to the flesh” — that is, from the works of the Law. It is as though he were saying: Shall we say that he was righteous from these? No, because if he is righteous by bodily observance, he has eternal glory, which follows from righteousness; but he has it from himself, not from God. Or else, this justification is in the opinion of men, and not before God. But before God he has glory; therefore he was not justified by works. Whence then was he justified? He goes on and says whence, etc.

 

3. “He believed.” To believe was a sufficient cause for righteousness for him, and it is for others as well. Nevertheless, for one who has time to act, the reward will not be given according to grace alone, but according to the debt of his action. But for one who does not have time to act, if he believes, faith alone is sufficient for righteousness, and thus for salvation, according to the grace proposed to all, or according to the law which God had previously established.

 

4. “But to him,” etc. It is as though he were saying: Abraham is righteous by faith; but for one who performs those bodily works, or some good deeds in order to earn grace, if there is a reward for him, it is not from grace, but from the debt of his merit. But for the one who does not do these bodily works, or any good deeds, but only believes, faith is sufficient for righteousness; and thus he attributes to others what Abraham said, namely, that if one is righteous from works, he has glory, but not before God, and therefore it is by faith.

 

“According to grace.” If it is grace, it is given freely, or it stands freely. You have done nothing good, and the remission of sins is given to you. Your deeds are examined, and all are found to be evil.

 

Notes on Luke 13:1

  

The situation reported concerns certain Galileans—the number, unspecified, need have been no more than a couple (Easton, 213)—who had been offering sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem. The occasion could have been Passover, the only time when the laity slaughtered their own animals (Jeremias, Words, 207 n. 4), and the incident involved the killing of the men while they were sacrificing. Thus Pilate could be said to mix (μίγνυμι, Mt. 27:34; Rev. 8:7; 15:2) their blood with that of their sacrifices (cf. SB II, 193). The expression need not be taken literally, but could simply be a gruesome metaphor for the two events taking place simultaneously. (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978], 553)

 

Here is the text of Strack and Billerbeck Marshall references:

 

13:1: Galileans, whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices.

 

This was possible because the slaughter of the sacrificial animals was primarily the responsibility of the person who offered the sacrifice. The activity of the priests did not begin until the blood was collected and sprinkled.

 

Mishnah Zebaḥim 3.1: The slaughter is valid if it is done by non-priests, by women, by slaves, and even by unclean people. Even for the most holy sacrifices, only those who are unclean may not touch the sacrifice.—Babylonian Talmud Zebaḥim 32A: Because it says, “But you and your sons with you shall observe your priesthood with regard to every matter of the altar” (Num 18:7), one might think that this also applies to the slaughter of the sacrifice (that this is also to be done by the priests). However, the Scripture teaches, “And he is to slaughter the young ox before Yahweh, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, are to offer the blood” (Lev 1:5). From the collection (of the blood) onward, the commandments are applicable to the priesthood. This teaches that the slaughter can be done by every human being in a manner that is valid.—This baraita can be found in SLev 1:5. ‖ ἔμιξεν = עֵירֵב.—Midrash on Psalms 7 § 2 (32A): R. Samuel b. Nahman (ca. 260) said, “David swore to Abishai, son of Zeruiah, and said, ‘As the true Yahweh lives’ (1 Sam 26:10)! If you touch the blood of this righteous one (Saul), I will mix your blood with his blood אני מערב דמך בדמו.” ‖ Exodus Rabbah 19 (81C): God said to the Israelites, “If you do not circumcise yourselves, you are not permitted to eat (of the Passover lamb),” see Exod 12:43. Immediately, they gave themselves over to be circumcised, and the blood of the Passover sacrifice was mixed נתערב with the blood of circumcision. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:225)

 

Robert Alter on Ecclesiastes 2:3

  

not grasping folly. The Masoretic Text reads “grasping folly” (leʾehoz besikhlut), but this translation adopts a frequently proposed emendation, assuming that a scribe inadvertently dropped “not” (loʾ) in copying because it had the same two letters, lamed and aleph, that begin the next word, leʾehoz. The idea is that Qohelet gave himself over to drinking and revelry yet clung to his perspective of wisdom because his purpose in indulging the senses was to see if, indeed, that was part of “what is good for the sons of man that they should do under the heavens.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:682)

 

 

Robert Alter on Proverbs 27:16

  

Who conceals her conceals the wind, / and her name is called “right hand.” The Hebrew is unintelligible, as the translation indicates, and even with emendation it is hard to make sense of this verse. The “her” may refer to the nagging wife of the previous verse, in which case the idea is that it is impossible to hide her because she is everywhere. (The verb for the initial “conceals” is plural in the Hebrew but has been emended to a singular to accord with the second “conceals.”) The literal sense of the second verset in the received text is “and the oil of his right hand will call [or will be called],” weshemen yemino yiqraʾ. This has been emended, partly in accordance with the Septuagint, to read weshemah yamin yiqareiʾ. Even so, the meaning is unclear. Perhaps, by a stretch, it could mean, she is thought of as the right hand—that is, powerful—because there is no way to conceal or repress her. Amid all this confusion, Fox interestingly detects a pun: tsafan, “conceal,” suggests tsafon, “north”; and yamin, “right hand,” is an alternate term for “south.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:438)