Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.

“"Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do." This is his meaning: In our preaching we divided the world between us, I took the Gentiles and they the Jews, according to the Divine decree; but to the sustenance of the poor among the Jews I also contributed my share, which, had there been any dissension between us, they would not have accepted. Next, who were these poor persons? Many of the believing Jews in Palestine had been deprived of all their goods, and scattered over the world, as he mentions in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "For ye took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions;" and in writing to the Thessalonians, (1 Thes. ii: 14.) he extols their fortitude, "Ye became imitators of the Churches of God which are in Judaea, ...for ye also suffered the same thing of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews." And he shows throughout that those Greeks who believed were not under persecution from the rest, such as the believing Jews were suffering from their own kindred, for there is no nation of a temper so cruel. Wherefore he exercises much zeal, as appears in the Epistles to the Romans (Ro. xv: 25-27.) and Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi: 1-3.) that these persons should meet with much attention; and Paul not only collects money for them, but himself conveys it, as he says, "But now I go unto Jerusalem ministering unto the saints," (Ro. xv: 25.) for they were without the necessaries of life. And he here shows that in this instance having resolved to assist them, he had undertaken and would not abandon it.”

“The circumstances, he says, were such, that they were to preach to the Jews and we, to the nations. But the care for the poor became a matter common to both of them. These poor were those from the Jews who believed in Christ and who had been deprived of their own homes by the Jews; They were those to whom he wrote, For you accepted joyfully the seizure of your property (Hebr. 10:34).”

“Having shown that the Apostle in no way withdrew from his position in the aforesaid conference, he here consequently shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. And concerning this he does two things. First, he describes the condition of the apostles, who were unable to add anything to him; second, he pursues his proposal, at the place for to me, they who, etc. Now he describes their condition from three things. First, from the authority which they had in the Church, which is great. And as to this he says but from these, etc. The text is defective, whence it ought to be supplied thus: but from these, namely from Peter and John; as if he were saying: although for a time I yielded to them, I nevertheless received nothing from them, either of power or of doctrine. And if I received nothing from these, much less from the others. But it should be noted that what he says, who seemed to be something, if this is understood according to the grace of God which was in them, is true in this way, that according to this they were great, because whom he justified, these he also magnified, as is said in Romans 8:30. But if they are understood to be something according to themselves, then it is false, because according to this they were nothing. For if they seemed to be something of themselves, they would always have been great, because what belongs to a thing through itself always belongs to it. Whence, since they were not always great, they did not seem to be something of themselves. Second, he describes their condition from their state before their conversion, which they had in the synagogue. And this state he cautiously shows to have been abject and vile. Whence he says whatsoever they once were, because they were rustic, poor, unlearned, and without letters. 1 Corinthians 1:26: not many wise according to the flesh, etc. But what they were, it is nothing, that is, it does not matter to me, namely, to speak of it. And this perhaps he introduces so that, considering the state which they had in the synagogue (which was nothing) and the state of Paul (which was great), they might clearly know that Paul, as regards the matters of the Law, is to be preferred to them, and especially since Paul, in the state of the Church of Christ, was equal to them, so that Paul, in the state of the synagogue before his conversion, surpassed them, while in the state after his conversion he was equal to them. Whence, when it was a question of the synagogue, one ought rather to stand by Paul's judgment than that of the others; but when it was a question of the Gospel, one ought to stand by his judgment just as by that of the others. And just as the others were not great through the matters of the Law, but through Christ, so too the Apostle was great through Christ in faith, and not through the matters of the Law. Third, he describes their condition from divine election, and as to this he says for God does not accept the person, etc., as if he were saying: therefore they are great, because God magnified them, not looking to their merits or demerits, but to that very thing which he intends to do. And therefore he says God does not accept the person of man, that is, he does not regard it as great or small. Wisdom 6:8: he made the small and the great, etc. But without acceptance of persons he calls all to salvation, not imputing to them their sins, and this because they have passed away. 2 Corinthians 5:17: the old things have passed away, etc. Psalm 15:4: nor will I be mindful of their names, etc. And therefore Peter says, in Acts 10:34: in truth I have found that there is no acceptance of persons, etc. Concerning this it should be known that to accept a person is properly to attend, in some transaction, to a condition of the person that contributes nothing to the transaction, as if it were the rule of that transaction itself — for example, when I give a benefit to someone because he is noble, or handsome. For nobility or handsomeness contributes nothing to his having the benefit. But if the condition of the person does contribute to the transaction, then, in considering that condition in that deed, I am not accepting the person; as when I give a benefit to someone because he is good, and will serve the Church well, because he is well-lettered and honest, I am not an accepter of persons. Therefore to accept a person, properly speaking, is nothing other than to consider a condition of the person which contributes nothing to the transaction. Since, then, God in his works and benefits regards nothing pre-existing on the part of the creature — because that very thing which belongs to the creature is the effect of his election — but regards only, as a rule, the good pleasure of his own will, according to which he works all things, and not according to any condition of the person, as is said in Ephesians 4:7, it is manifest that he does not accept the person of man. Consequently, having described their condition, he shows his proposal, namely that they were able to add nothing to him. And therefore he says for to me, they who seemed to be something, contributed nothing, as if he were saying: although they were of great authority, nevertheless they added nothing to my teaching nor to my power, because, as was said above, neither did I receive the Gospel from man, nor was I taught it through man. But the Gloss reads otherwise: whatsoever they once were, etc., as if he were saying: it does not pertain to me to recount their state before their conversion, namely what sort of men they were, because this too does not matter, since I too was a persecutor of that very Church, and yet God, by the good pleasure of his own will, chose me and magnified me, and this because the Lord does not accept the person of man. Consequently, when he says but on the contrary, when they had seen, etc., he shows how his position was approved by the apostles. And concerning this he does three things. First, he sets down the cause of the approval; second, he intimates the approval itself, at the place James and Cephas, etc. Third, he adds a certain condition attached to the approval, at the place only that we should be mindful of the poor, etc. Now he sets down a twofold cause of the approval (which moved the apostles to approve the Apostle's position), namely, the office of preaching enjoined upon the Apostle by Christ, and the effect of the office enjoined, at the place and when they had known, etc. Concerning the first, he first sets down the office enjoined, which moved them to approve; second, the manifestation of the office, at the place for he who wrought, etc. He says therefore: I say that they who seemed to be something contributed nothing to me, but rather, against the opinion of the adversaries, who had gone up against me to Jerusalem to the apostles on account of this very question, the apostles themselves approved me, and this when they had seen that the Gospel had been entrusted to me, that is, the office of preaching, of the uncircumcision, that is, enjoined to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, to the gentiles. Jeremiah 9:26: all the nations have the foreskin, but the whole house, etc. Just as authority was committed to Peter, that he should preach to the Jews only, and to Paul, to the gentiles; but afterward both Peter preached to the gentiles, and Paul to the Jews. But because someone could say: whence is it clear to us that the Gospel among the gentiles has been committed to you? Therefore, interposing, he says that it is through the operations of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ on account of the wonders which Christ worked through him, so it is evident that I received it from him on account of the miracles which Christ has wrought, and works, in me. And therefore he says he who wrought in Peter, etc., that is, he who made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, he himself made me an apostle among the gentiles. And this is the cause which moves them. But because the injunction and authority of preaching does not suffice, unless a man carries it out through good knowledge and discreet eloquence, and commends it through a good life, therefore he adds the use of his authority or office, that is, its effect, saying and when they had known the grace of God, etc. And this is a suspended clause, that is, when they had seen that my preaching was gracious and fruitful, then James, and Cephas, and John, etc. In which is noted the approval, or the fellowship made between them and Paul. And first the persons are set down between whom the fellowship was made, who are James, and Cephas, that is, Peter, and John. And James is placed first, because he was bishop of Jerusalem, where these things were done. Now this John was John the Evangelist, who did not leave Judea until the time of Vespasian. Who seemed to be pillars. This is said metaphorically, that is, the support of the whole Church. For just as a whole building is sustained by pillars, so through these men the whole Church of the Jews was sustained and ruled. And of these pillars it is said in Psalm 74:4: I have made firm its pillars, that is, the apostles of the Church; Song of Songs 5:15: his legs are pillars of marble, which are founded upon bases of gold. These, namely on the one side, gave the right hands of fellowship, that is, they consented into fellowship, to me and to Barnabas, in which are designated the persons on the other side. Now by this, that they gave right hands to each other, it is signified that by their hands they received one another as a sign of conjunction and of unity of opinion. Second, the tenor or condition of the fellowship is shown, when it is said that we should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision, namely, that they should preach; as if he were saying: a conjunction and union was made between us, yet in such a way that, just as all the faithful obey Peter in the circumcision, that is, in the Church of the faithful Jews, so all the gentiles who were converted to Christ should obey Barnabas and Paul. This, however, was added, that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, who, namely, had sold all their goods, and had placed the price of them at the feet of the apostles, having been made poor on account of Christ. Which indeed I was solicitous to do this same thing, no less zealous than those who had ordained it, as appears in Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 6, and 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9. Now the reason why the custom of the primitive Church, of the selling of possessions, was observed in the Church from the circumcision, and not in the Church from the gentiles, is this: because the faithful Jews were gathered together in Jerusalem, and in Judea, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as the outcome of the matter afterward proved; and therefore the Lord willed that possessions should not be kept in reserve there, where they were not going to remain. But the Church of the gentiles was to be established and increased, and therefore it was brought about by the counsel of the Holy Spirit, that in it possessions should not be sold.”

“Only they would that we should remember the poor,.... Not in a spiritual sense, as some have thought, though these the apostle was greatly mindful of; but properly and literally the poor as to the things of this world; and may design the poor in general, everywhere, in the several churches where they should be called to minister, and particularly the poor saints at Jerusalem; who were become such, either through the frequent calamities of the nation, and a dearth or scarcity of provisions among them, and which affected the whole country; or rather through the persecutions of their countrymen, who plundered them of their goods for professing the name of Christ; or it may be through their having given up all their substance into one common stock and fund, as they did at first, and which was now exhausted, and that in a great measure by assisting out of it the preachers who first spread the Gospel among the Gentiles; so that it was but just that they should make some return unto them, and especially for the spiritual favours they received from them, as the Gospel, and the ministers of it, which first went out of Jerusalem: the "remembering" of them not only intends giving them actual assistance according to their abilities, which was very small, but mentioning their case to the several Gentile churches, and stirring them up to a liberal contribution: the same which I also was forward to do; as abundantly appears from his epistles to the churches, and especially from his two epistles to the Corinthians. Now since the apostles at Jerusalem desired nothing else but this, and said not a word concerning the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the law, and neither found fault with, nor added to the Gospel the apostle communicated to them, it was a clear case that there was an entire agreement between them, in principle and practice, and that he did not receive his Gospel from them.”

“Only they would that we should remember the poor - They saw plainly that God had as expressly called Barnabas and me to go to the Gentiles as he had called them to preach to the Jews; and they did not attempt to give us any new injunctions, only wished us to remember the poor in Judea; but this was a thing to which we were previously disposed.”