Romans 9:18–33

Here Paul assumes the role of an objector who makes these assumptions.

Someone may object that Pharaoh cannot have been hardened, nor can anyone else who falls into sin, since in that case they would not be guilty of the hardening which has come upon them. But in saying this, O Man, you are going beyond yourself and seeking the secret reason for this inequality in God. There is no injustice here, the apostle said, because the refusal to show mercy on a sinner is due to the foreknowledge of the divine wisdom and not to some judicial reward. In this respect the apostle goes on to say that it is not up to men to sound the hidden depths of God, for the message of salvation is properly administered to all, whether mercy is shown to them or not.

He enables the one on whom he has mercy to do good, and he leaves the one whom he hardens to do evil. But that mercy is the result of the prior merit of faith, and that hardening is the fruit of prior unbelief, so that we do good deeds by the gift of God and evil deeds because of his punishment. Yet in either case free will is not taken away from man, whether it is to believe in God, so that mercy on us might follow, or to disbelieve in him, so that punishment on us might be the result.

Why does the Father not teach all people in order that they might come to Christ, unless it is that all those whom he teaches, he teaches because of mercy, but those whom he does not teach, he does not teach because of judgment?

You must believe that the man whom God permits to go astray and to become hardened has deserved this evil, while in the case of the man upon whom he has mercy, you must acknowledge with an unswerving faith that this is a case of the grace of God, who is rendering not evil for evil but good for evil.

"Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he then find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" See what pains he takes to embarrass the subject in every way. And the answer he does not produce forthwith, it being a useful thing not to do so, but he first stops the disputant's mouth, saying as follows.

Pharaoh's heart was hardened in the following way: God did not want to punish him immediately and completely. Although Pharaoh's wickedness was enormous, God in his patience did not withdraw the possibility of conversion from him. Instead he struck him lightly at first and then gradually increased the blows. But although God acted with patience, Pharaoh was hardened by that very thing and became even more angry with God and contemptuous of him.… Therefore it is not that God hardens whom he wills, but rather that whoever is not softened by his patience is thereby automatically hardened.

If this is understood to mean that God has mercy on whom he wills and hardens whom he wills because there is enough wickedness, then your argument will be lost, viz., the argument that not you but the will of the Lord, to which there can be no opposition, is the cause of your sins. The very nature of God's justice opposes this reasoning.

He draws a conclusion and proves that one should not demand an account from God. God has mercy on whom He wills, as He did with the Israelites who cast the calf, and hardens whom He wills, as happened with Pharaoh. What then does "hardens" mean? It would seem absurd. But it is said of God that He made the filthy heart of Pharaoh hard in the same way that the sun makes mud hard. In what manner? By longsuffering; for He made him hard by showing longsuffering toward him. Here something similar occurred to what happens when someone who has a wicked servant treats him with kindness. The more kindly he treats him, the worse he makes him — not because he himself teaches him vice, but because the servant uses his longsuffering to increase his own wickedness, because he despises that longsuffering.

Then when he says, therefore, he has mercy on whom he wills, he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited. From the statement I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, he concludes: therefore he has mercy upon whom he wills: the Lord has mercy on them that fear him (Ps 103:11); from the text, have I raised you, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills: you have hardened our heart, so that we fear you not (Isa 3:17); some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them has he cursed and brought low (Sir 33:12). There seems to be no difficulty about God's mercy, once we grant what has been said above. But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening. First, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sirach: a hard heart shall fear evil at the last (Sir 3:27). Consequently, if God hardens the heart, he is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in James: God is no tempter to evil (Jas 1:13). The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though he causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace. The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: this is the will of God, your sanctification (1 Thess 4:3) and he desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just. Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy on whom he wills through his mercy and he hardens whom he wills through his justice, because those whom he hardens deserve to be hardened by him, as was stated above (Rom 1).

Paul teaches us first that nobody can resist God's will because he is more powerful than anyone else. Next he teaches us that God is the Father of all and therefore does not want anyone to suffer evil. What God has made he wants to remain unharmed.

Having given his conclusion [in the last verse] Paul plays devil's advocate by asking a rhetorical question.… He responds to this question in a sensible way so that we might understand that the basic rewards of faith and of unbelief are made plain only to spiritual people and not to those who live according to the earthly man. Likewise with the way God in his foreknowledge elects those who will believe and condemns unbelievers. He neither elects the ones because of their works nor condemns the others because of theirs, but he grants to the faith of the ones the ability to do good works and hardens the unbelief of the others by deserting them, so that they do evil. This understanding, as I have said, is given only to spiritual people and is very different from the wisdom of the flesh. Thus Paul counters his inquirer so that he may understand that he first must put away the man of clay in order to be worthy to investigate these things by the Spirit.

It is certain that no one can resist God's will, but it is good for us to remember that his will is just and right. Whether we are good or bad depends on our will, but it is God's will that the bad person is destined to punishment and the good person is destined to glory.

The Apostle, as I have repeatedly said, strives in every way to prove that the dispensations and judgments of God are known to God alone, and therefore everywhere gathers a multitude of difficulties and does not offer solutions, so that, having placed the listener in a difficult position, he might convince him that the dispensations and judgments of God are incomprehensible to man and surpass his understanding. The meaning of the present passage is as follows. The Apostle presents an objection and a perplexity. If God hardens whom He wills, then why does He still blame the sinner? For who can resist His will? He willed it and hardened, and the hardened one sinned justly: how then can He blame and punish him? The Apostle presented precisely such an objection in order to show that the perplexity about this can be resolved by God alone; which is why he does not resolve it himself, but stops the mouth of the one who is perplexed.

Having solved the question proposed, the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills (Rom 9:18). First, he places the objection; second, the solution, at O man, who are you. First, therefore, he says: we have said that God has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills. You will say therefore to me: why does he still find fault? i.e., what need is there to inquire any further into the cause of the good and evil done here, since all things are attributed to the divine will, which is a sufficient cause, since no one can resist him? Hence he continues: for who resists his will? I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven (Eccl 1:13). Or in another way: why does he still find fault? i.e., why does God complain about men when they sin, as in Isaiah: some have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me (Isa 1:2). Therefore, he does not seem to have a just complaint, because it all proceeds from his will, which no one can resist. Hence he adds: who resists his will? Or still another way: why does he still find fault, i.e., why is man still required to do good and avoid evil: he has showed you, O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and love mercy and walk with your God? (Mic 6:8). For it is useless to require of someone that which is not in his power. But nothing seems to lie in man's power, according to the above, in which all things seem ascribed to the divine will, which cannot be resisted. He adds: for who resists his will? As if to say: no one. There is none that can resist your will (Esth 13:11). And this seems to be the Apostle's meaning.

It is a great indignity and presumption for a man to answer back to God—the unjust to the just, the evil to the good, the imperfect to the perfect, the weak to the strong, the corruptible to the incorrupt, the mortal to the immortal, the servant to the Lord, the creature to the Creator!

As long as you are just a creature, says Paul, like this lump of clay, and you have not been led to spiritual things, so that as a spiritual man you might judge all things and be judged by no one, it is right for you to hold back from this kind of inquiry and not to answer back to God. For everyone who wants to know God's plan ought first to be received into his friendship, and this is only possible for spiritual people who already bear the image of the heavenly.

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God in the dock.

[Lewis describes his pre-conversion resentment at having been created, illustrating the creature's rebellion against the Creator's sovereign act]

I was also, as you may remember, one whose negative demands were more violent than his positive, far more eager to escape pain than to achieve happiness, and feeling it something of an outrage that I had been created without my own permission. To such a craven the materialist's universe had the enormous attraction that it offered you limited liabilities. No strictly infinite disaster could overtake you in it. Death ended all. And if ever finite disasters proved greater than one wished to bear, suicide would always be possible. The horror of the Christian universe was that it had no door marked Exit.

But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" This he does to take down the objector's unseasonable inquisitiveness, and excessive curiosity, and to put a check upon it, and teach him to know what God is, and what man, and how incomprehensible His foreknowledge is, and how far above our reason, and how obedience to Him in all points is binding. So when he has made this preparatory step in his hearer, and has hushed and softened down his spirit, then with great felicity he introduces the answer, having made what he says easy of admittance with him.

And he does not say, it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that it is presumptuous to raise them. For our business is to obey what God does, not to be curious even if we do not know the reason of them. Wherefore he said, "Who art thou that repliest against God?" You see how very light he makes of him, how he bears down his swelling spirit!

"Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which followeth the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please.

And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, "He couched, he lay down as a lion;" let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion.

I do not think that, if you are a faithful and discreet servant of God and want to understand and admire the wisdom of the Lord, he will say to you: "Who are you?" … If we want to know something of the secret and hidden things of God and if we are not people of lusts and contentions, then let us inquire faithfully and humbly into the judgments of God which are contained more secretly in holy Scripture. For even the Lord said: "Search the Scriptures," knowing that these things are applicable not to those who are busy with other matters and only hear or read the Bible from time to time, but to those who with a pure and simple heart endeavor to open up the holy Scriptures by their labor and constant attention. I know well enough that I am not one of them! But anyone who is, let him seek and he will find.

Such a rebuke does not refer to one who is faithful and lives a good and righteous life and has confidence towards God.… This rebuke is not for the faithful and the saints but for the unfaithful and the ungodly.

Some people say that Paul is still speaking here in the role of those who object, because to say that nobody can oppose the will of God, who has mercy on one and who hardens another, and to add that nobody should criticize God amounts to the same thing. But others say that from here on the apostle replies that, even if there were a reason for them to make an accusation, they ought not to talk back to their Creator, for in comparison with God, we are like a piece of pottery in the hands of the potter.

In the same way the potter, too, has it in his power, by tempering the blast of his fire, to modify his clayey material into a stiffer one, and to mould one form after another more beautiful than the original substance, and now possessing both a kind and name of its own. For although the Scripture says, "Shall the clay say to the potter? " that is, Shall man contend with God? although the apostle speaks of "earthen vessels" he refers to man, who was originally clay.

How can the thing which is made blame its Maker for the construction of its own nature? Everything must be content with its own nature, whatever that may be.

If you did not have your own independence, and if you did not choose what you do by your own free will, you would have to be quiet in the way that inanimate objects are and simply acquiesce in what is given to you. But as it is you have reason, and you can both describe and do the things which are shown to you. Instead you do not like what has happened and are trying to investigate the causes of the divine plan.

Do you see how he stops untimely curiosity, puts on a bridle, and teaches one to know the difference between God and man? "But who are you?" Do you share with God in governance? Are you a judge of what He ought to do or not do? To say that this should be done in one way and that in another means to argue with God and act contrary to Him. But this must by no means be done; rather, one must submissively accept what God has done, however it may have been done. Paul used this example not in order to destroy our free will and present us as inactive and immovable, but in order to teach us how we ought to submit to God and show Him deep and silent obedience.

Then he answers the question, at O man, who are you. To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does he will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one? Although a reason other than God's will can be assigned in the first question, the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God's absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top and others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the top and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed. First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why he has mercy on this one and hardens that one; second, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why he is merciful to some and hardens others, at what if God. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he censures the questioner's presumption; second, he cites an authority which solves the question, at shall the thing formed say to him who formed it; third, he explains the authority, at or has not the potter power. First, therefore, he says: O man, who are you, fragile and unknowing, who replies against God? How would you answer him, if he were to contend with you in judgment? If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times (Job 9:3). Again, as it says in Job: he who argues with God, let him answer him (Job 39:30). In this we are given to understand that man should not examine the reason for God's judgments with the intention of comprehending them, for they exceed human reason: seek not the things that are too high for you (Sir 3:22); he that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27). Then, when he says shall the thing formed, he cites the authority of Isaiah: shall the thing made say of its maker, he did not make me? (Isa 29:16). Here it should be noted that if an artisan uses base matter to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all ascribed to the goodness of the artisan; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving-dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such base matter, say clay, he produced a vessel adapted to meaner uses, for example, for cooking or such, the vessel, if it could think, would have no complaint. But it could complain, if from precious metals, such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses. But human nature has baseness about it from its matter, because as Genesis says: God formed man of dust from the ground (Gen 2:7), and more baseness after being spoiled by sin, which entered this world through one man. That is why man is compared to dirt, in Job: I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes (Job 30:19). Hence, any good that man possesses is due to God's goodness as its basic source: O Lord, you are our Father, we are the clay, and you are the potter, we are all the work of your hands (Isa 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance man to better things but leaves him in his weakness and reserves him for the lowliest use, he does him no injury such that he could justly complain about God.

The substance of the clay is the same, but the will of the potter is different. Likewise God made us all of the same substance and we all became sinners, but he had mercy on one and rejected another, not without justice. The potter has only a will, but God has a will and justice to go with it. For he knows who ought to be shown mercy, as I have already said.

As long as you are a potter's vessel, you must first be broken by the iron rod of which it was said: "You will rule them with a rod of iron, and you will break them as a potter's vessel." Then, when the outer man is destroyed and the inner man is renewed, you will be able, rooted and grounded in love, to understand what is the length and breadth and height and depth, to know even the overwhelming knowledge of the love of God. So because from the same lump of clay God has made some vessels for noble use and others for ignoble, it is not for you, whoever you are who still lives according to this lump (that is, who are wise by the standards of earthly sense and the flesh), to dispute what God has decreed.

First comes the clay which is fit only to be thrown away. We must begin with this but need not remain in it. Afterward comes what is fit for use, into which we can be gradually molded and in which, once molded, we can remain. This does not mean that everyone who is wicked will become good but that no one becomes good who was not once wicked. What is true is that the sooner a man makes a change in himself for the better, the sooner he has a right to be called what he has become.

Given that our nature sinned in paradise, we are now formed through a mortal begetting by the same divine providence, not according to heaven but according to earth, i. e., not according to the spirit but according to the flesh, and we have all become one mass of clay, i.e., a mass of sin.

If this lump of clay were of such indifferent value that it deserved nothing good any more than it deserved anything evil, there would be reason to see injustice in making of it a vessel unto dishonor. But when through the free will of the first man alone, condemnation extended to the whole lump of clay, it is undoubtedly true that if vessels are made of it unto honor, it is a question not of justice not forestalling grace, but of God's mercy. If however, vessels are made of it unto dishonor, this is to be attributed to God's justice, not to his injustice—a concept which can hardly exist with God!

It would seem unjust that vessels of wrath should be made unto destruction if the whole lump of clay has not been condemned in Adam. The fact that men become vessels of wrath at birth is due to the penalty they deserve, but that they become vessels of mercy at their second birth is due to an undeserved grace.

It is not possible to say on the basis of this [verse] that there are different types of human nature, nor does holy Scripture claim that some people have been made cruel or obdurate or even vessels of honor and wickedness, nor does it attribute this kind of nature to them. Rather, it should be understood to mean that some men are made like clay vessels and that we use them either for honor or for dishonor.

Do not dare to condemn God or imagine that he showed mercy on one and hardened another by accident, for it was according to the power of his foreknowledge that he gave each one his due. Nor is he guilty because he knew in advance what would happen, but rather each of those who was foreknown in this way is responsible for his own actions, whether good or evil.

Remember the incident in Jeremiah when the prophet went down to the potter's house and found him reworking a clay vessel which was spoiled, as it seemed good to him to do. Then the Lord said: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." It seems to me that no more need be said on the subject.…Someone who does not cleanse himself and does not wash away his sins by repentance is a vessel fit only for menial use. If he goes on and increases in wickedness so that his mind is hardened and his impenitent heart ends up despising everything God commands, then he will no longer be fit even for menial use but will become a vessel fit only for destruction.

If both the saved and the lost come from one lump of clay, then the nature of their souls will be not different but the same.

The vessel is the flesh, because it was made of clay by the breath of God, and only afterward was it clothed with the coat of skin.

Whoever heard of a clay pot made for menial use blaming the potter for the way it was made and demanding to be remolded for some better purpose?

Those who are called vessels for menial use have chosen this path for themselves.… This is clear from what Paul says to Timothy: "If anyone purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work."

As a potter makes whatever he pleases from one and the same clay, and not one of the vessels contradicts him, so you too should not ask God why He punishes some people and rewards others, even though they are of one and the same race; rather, revere Him and imitate the clay. As it is submissive to the hand of the potter, so you too be submissive to the decree of the Ruler of the universe. Know then, reader, that just as with vessels it does not depend on the clay that one turns out for honorable use and another for common use (for the clay is one and the same), but on the use made by those who employ the vessel, so too with people it does not depend on nature that some are worthy of punishment and others of rewards (for nature is one and the same), but on free will.

Then the Apostle explains the words of the prophet, when he says or has not the potter power. As if to say what is molded, i.e., the vessel, should not say to the potter: why have you made me thus? because the potter is free to make anything he wishes out of the clay. Hence he says: or has not the potter power over the clay, to make without any injury to it, of the same lump of base matter one vessel unto honor, i.e., for honorable use and another unto dishonor, i.e., for meaner uses: in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. (2 Tim 2:20). In the same way God has free power to make from the same spoiled matter of the human race, as from clay, and without any injustice some men prepared for glory and some abandoned in wretchedness: behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel (Jer 18:6).

This means that unbelievers are made ready for punishment by the will and longsuffering of God, which is his patience. For although he has waited a long time for them, they have not repented. He has waited a long time so that they should be without excuse, for God knew all along that they would not believe.

Paul has sufficiently demonstrated that the hardness of heart which came to Pharaoh came as the just deserts of his earlier unbelief. Yet God patiently endured his unbelief until the time came for him to mete out his punishment. God did this in order to correct those whom he had decided to set free from error and to lead them by calling them back to reverence and godliness, offering his aid to their prayers and sighings.

"What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath of God. For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calleth him not only "a vessel of wrath," but also one "fitted for destruction." That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self. For neither had God left out aught of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out aught of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew this, "He endured him with much long-suffering," being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath, He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power.

For that it is not God's wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul does not wish to appear powerful in this way ("not that we should appear approved," he says, "but that ye should do that which is honest"), much less doth God. But after that he had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins but repented, He manifested His love toward man.

Of course God is not subject to the passion of wrath. It is when he does what we do when we are angry that he calls it "wrath," so that we will understand what he means.

I am astonished when I examine the Holy Spirit's purpose in the Scriptures. For he says that the wrath of God, which is foreign to his nature, will be made known to men … but that his goodness and mercy, which are proper to his nature, will be concealed and hidden.… Why should God reveal his wrath to men and conceal his mercy? No doubt it is because God knows that the human race is weak and prone to fall through negligence, and that it is therefore better for them to be under the fear of wrath than to relax in the hope of God's mercy and forgiveness.

God put up with Pharaoh for a long time while Pharaoh blasphemed and oppressed his people with hard labor and even had ordered that innocent little children be put to death. By filling up the quota of their sins, people like Pharaoh become vessels worthy of wrath, and by their own doing they prepare themselves for destruction.

What Paul is saying is this: God has made this present life one of struggles and not of reward, and he agrees that wicked men and good ones alike will be tested in both good and bad things in order to have an exact touchstone for the predestination of each person. In this way those who are good will follow the path of virtue and will cling to it through all the changes of life, neither boasting in the good times nor being unable to bear reverses. Wicked people, on the other hand, will in all circumstances be shown to be lovers of evil, ignorant of the reason for their good fortune when they enjoy it and exaggerating the wretchedness of their condition when they suffer grief. God gives each of these what they deserve in the next life.

Having shut the mouth of the curious, he now gives the solution. The meaning of what is said is as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his hardheartedness kindles the wrath of God. God "endured" him, that is, bore with him, was patient; for He deemed him worthy of great longsuffering. But he used this longsuffering for hardening and became a vessel fitted to receive wrath, complete for destruction, that is, prepared for it by himself and of his own will, because he omitted nothing that served for his destruction, but did everything that drew him toward destruction. Otherwise: "endured," that is, set him forth publicly, so that, since he did not become better from the longsuffering, He might punish him and show His own power, so that from this others might become better.

Then, when he says what if God, willing, he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works is the manifestation of divine goodness: the Lord has made all things for himself (Prov 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:20). But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which he is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom his justice is manifested with regard to those he punishes according to their deserts and his mercy in those he delivers by his grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in man he mercifully delivers some, but not all. First, therefore, he gives an account of the rejections of the wicked; second, of the election of the good, at that he might show the riches. In both cases three differences should be considered. First, with respect to the end; second, with respect to use; third, with respect to the divine act. Now the end of the rejection or hardening of the wicked is the manifestation of divine justice and power. Referring to this he says: what, i.e., but, if God, willing to show his wrath, i.e., retaliatory justice. For wrath is said of God not as an emotion but as the effect of retaliation: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven (Rom 1:18). Then he adds: and to make his power known, because God not only uses wrath, i.e., retribution, by punishing those subject to him, but also by subjecting them to himself by his power: according to his work by which he can subject all things to himself (Phil 3:21); and they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them (Exod 14:31). The use which God makes of the wicked is wrath, i.e., punishment. And this is why he calls them vessels of wrath, i.e., instruments of justice that God uses to show wrath, i.e., retributive justice: we were by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). But God's action toward them is not that he disposes them to evil, since they of themselves have a disposition to evil from the corruption of the first sin. Hence he says fitted for destruction, i.e., having in themselves a disposition toward eternal condemnation: God saw that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times (Gen 6:5). The only thing God does concerning them is that he lets them do what they want. Hence not without meaning does he say endured. And the fact that he does not exact retribution immediately shows his patience; so he adds with much patience: the Most High is a patient rewarder (Sir 5:4).

It is God's patience and long-suffering that, just as he prepares the wicked for destruction, so also he prepares the good for their reward. For the good are those who have the hope of faith. God preserves everyone knowing what the destiny of each will be. Therefore, it is a sign of his patience that those who have been rescued from evil or who persevere in good works he prepares for glory.

In giving to some what they did not deserve God obviously wanted his grace to be gratuitous and therefore genuinely grace, and in not giving it to all he showed what all deserved. He is good in the benefit given to certain people and just in the punishment of others but good in all things, for it is good when that which is deserved is given, and just in all things, as it is just when that which is not merited is given without injury to anyone.

We who were vessels of wrath through our first birth have deserved to become vessels of mercy through the second one. The first birth brought us forth unto death, but the second one recalled us to life. All of us were temples of the devil before baptism, but after baptism we were made ready to become temples of Christ.

The riches of God are made known when his mercy is shown toward those who are rejected by men and who are downtrodden, who put their hope not in their own riches or in their own strength but in the Lord.

Just as by punishing him who had become a vessel of wrath by his own choice, God showed His power, so by having mercy on many who had sinned but had become worthy of mercy — the Gentiles — He manifested "the riches of His glory." He did not say: of His love for mankind, but: "of glory," for the perfect glory of God consists in showing mercy. Furthermore, "which He had prepared beforehand," that is, foreknew.

Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things. First, the end, when he says that he might show the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory. And this is the meaning of that he might show the riches of his glory, the riches concerning which he said above: or do you despise the riches of his goodness? (Rom 2:4). God who is rich in mercy (Eph 2:4). And it is significant that he says that he might show the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and reprobation of the wicked, carried out in accord with God's justice, makes known and highlights the glory of the saints, who were freed from such misery as this. Second, he describes their use, when he says on the vessels of mercy. He names them vessels of mercy because God uses them as instruments to show his mercy: these were men of mercy (Sir 44:10). Third, he sets out God's action in their regard. For God does not merely endure them, as though they were of themselves disposed to the good, but rather he prepares and disposes them by calling them to glory. Hence he says which he has prepared unto glory: preparing the mountains by your power (Ps 64:7). Even to this point the Apostle uses an incomplete and suspensive construction, so that the meaning is: if God wants to do this, to have mercy on some and harden others, what can justly be said against it? As though to imply: nothing. For he does not will to harden them in such a way that he compels them to sin, but rather he endures them so that they may tend to evil by their own inclination.

God has called those whom he has prepared for glory, who he knew would persevere in faith, whether they are near at hand or far away.

God did not call all the Jews but only some of them. Nor did he call all the Gentiles but only some of them. From Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and godless men, in which both Jews and Gentiles belong to one lump, apart from the grace of God. If the potter out of one lump of clay makes one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, it is clear that God has made of the Jews some vessels for honor and others for dishonor, and similarly of the Gentiles.

Since even then some of the Egyptians left with the children of Israel … so too now God has called not only Jews but also Gentiles to faith.

And he did not say: He saved all the Gentiles, but: "from among the Gentiles," that is, some. Therefore do not be offended, O Jew. Behold, even among the Gentiles some receive mercy, and others do not.

After showing that God's grace is given to men as a result of God's election through which men are called to grace, the Apostle shows that such election or calling applies not only to the Jews—as if they could boast on account of what is said in Deuteronomy: he loved your fathers (Deut 4:37)—but also to the gentiles. First, he states the intended proposition; second, he proves it, at as in Hosea he says; third, he draws the conclusion, at what then shall we say? First, therefore, he says: we have stated that God prepared the saints for glory, whom he also has called, namely, by his grace, not only of the Jews but also of the gentiles: is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also? (Rom 3:29); they shall adore him, every man from his own place, all the islands of the gentiles (Zeph 2:11).

It is clear that this was said about the Gentiles, who once were not God's people, but afterward, to the chagrin of the Jews, received mercy and are called God's people. Once they were not loved, but when the Jews fell away they were adopted as children and are now loved, so that where once they were not called God's people, now they are called children of the living God.

The gist of the entire argument leads to this conclusion. Paul taught that we do good by the mercy of God and that the Jews who had received the gospel should not glory in their works, thinking that they had deserved this and not wanting it to be given to the Gentiles. In Paul's mind, the Jews should cease from such pride and understand that if we are called to faith not through our own works but by the mercy of God and if it is given to those who believe to do good, then they should not begrudge the Gentiles this mercy as if it had been given to the Jews on the ground of prior merit, which is nothing.

For Matthew the apostle-knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved-declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, "O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." He preached to them, therefore, the repentance from wickedness, but he did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham...

For this reason did Hosea the prophet take "a wife of whoredoms," prophesying by means of the action, "that in committing fornication the earth should fornicate from the Lord," that is, the men who are upon the earth; and from men of this stamp it will be God's good pleasure to take out a Church which shall be sanctified by fellowship with His Son, just as that woman was sanctified by intercourse with the prophet. And for this reason, Paul declares that the "unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband." Then again, the prophet names his children, "Not having obtained mercy," and "Not a people," in order that, as says the apostle, "what was not a people may become a people; and she who did not obtain mercy may obtain mercy. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said, This is not a people, there shall they be called the children of the living God." That which had been done typically through his actions by the prophet, the apostle proves to have been done truly by Christ in the Church.

"I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved." Here to prevent their saying, that you are deceiving us here with specious reasoning, he calls Hosea to witness, who crieth and saith, "I will call them My people, who were not My people." Who then are the not-people? Plainly, the Gentiles. And who the not-beloved? The same again. However, he says, that they shall become at once people, and beloved, and sons of God.

This passage originally applied to Jews, not to Gentiles.… It meant that God's people would lose their status and be called "Not my people" and "Not beloved." But then God promised that the rejected Jews would be called back again. Thus from having been God's people and then rejected they would return.… The Gentiles, on the other hand, would become God's people for the first time, having never been his people before.

The Jews could say: you, Paul, are deceiving us by saying this. Therefore he brings forward Hosea, who cries out and says: "I will call those who were not My people, My people." Who then was "not His people"? The Gentiles. And who was "not beloved"? The Gentile Church. Yet the Gentiles became a people and beloved.

Then he proves the proposition, when he says as in Hosea he says: first, with respect to the gentiles; second, the Jews, at and Isaiah cried out. In regard to the first he cites two texts from Hosea speaking for the gentiles: the first of these promises them God's gifts; the second, divine sonship, at and it shall be in the place where it was said unto them. First, therefore, he says: as the Lord says in Hosea, because it was he who spoke in the prophets: the Spirit of the Lord spoke through me, his word is upon my tongue (2 Sam 23:2). Hence, too, it says in Hosea: when the Lord first spoke through Hosea (Hos 1:2). Here it should be noted that the gentiles were cut off from three blessings for which the Jews were famous: first, divine sonship, by reason of which they were called the people of God, as though serving him and obeying his precepts: we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his herd (Ps 95:7). But the gentiles were alienated from the society of this people, as it says in Ephesians: alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise (Eph 2:12). However, through Christ they have become God's people: he gave himself for us to purify for himself a people of his own (Titus 2:14). And that is what he says: I will call those who were not my people, i.e., the gentiles, my people, i.e., that they be my people. The second is the privilege of divine love: the Lord loves the people of Israel (Hos 3:1), because he offered them many benefits leading to special graces. From this love the gentiles had formerly been excluded: alienated from God's truth because of the ignorance that is in them (Eph 3:18). Hence, he says: and her who was not beloved, i.e., the gentile races, I will call my beloved. You who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13); while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Rom 5:10). The third is deliverance from original sin through circumcision: the Lord will have compassion on Jacob (Isa 14:1). But the gentiles had no share in this compassion: on the day you were born your navel string was not out and no eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you (Exod 16:5). But later through Christ they obtained compassion. Similarly it follows: and her who had not obtained mercy, one who has obtained mercy. He saved us in virtue of his own mercy (Titus 3:5). He cites this text from Hosea according to the Septuagint, in the place where our text has: I will have mercy on her who was without mercy, and I will say to not my people: you are my people (Hos 2:23).

"For even they shall be called," he says, "the children of the living God." But if they should assert that this was said of those of the Jews who believed, even then the argument stands. For if with those who after so many benefits were hard-hearted and estranged, and had lost their being as a people, so great a change was wrought, what is there to prevent even those who were not estranged after being taken to Him, but were originally aliens, from being called, and, provided they obey, from being counted worthy of the same blessings?

Those who think that this is not Paul talking but the Jews interpret it to mean: "God saved as many as he wished, so that he chose even Gentile idolaters who had never served God, and called few from Israel, as Isaiah testifies."

And even, what is more important, sons of the living God. If someone should say that this was spoken about the Jews who had conducted themselves ungratefully but were afterwards received into grace, such an argument does not harm our explanation. For if this acceptance happened with them, what prevented it from happening with the Gentiles?

Then, when he says and it shall be in the place, he cites another text from Hosea in which they are promised the dignity of being sons of God (Hos 1:10), about which the Jews boasted because, as it says in Isaiah: sons have I reared and brought up (Isa 1:2) and in Deuteronomy: is he not your father? (Deut 32:6). For the gentiles not only were not called sons, which applies to those who serve God out of love and are led by the Spirit of God (Rom 8:14); they were not even worthy to be called the people of God, which could apply at least to those who had received the spirit of servitude in fear. Hence, he says, and it shall be in the place, i.e., in Judea, where it was said unto them, i.e., to the gentiles by the Jews speaking as though in God's person: you are not my people, because they did not consider them God's people, there, i.e., even among the believing Jews, they shall be called the sons of the living God. Or in the place, i.e., in the entire world where they will be converted to the faith. This would indicate that they would not be converted in the same way as proselytes, who would leave their native land and journey to Judea. That this would not happen in the case of those converted to Christ is shown in Zephaniah: to him they shall bow down, each in his own place (Zeph 2:11). Therefore, to each one living in his own place, where it was said to them in former times, you are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God by divine adoption: to all who believed in his name, he gave them power to become children of God (John 1:12).

Paul says this because Isaiah was crying out for those who would believe in Christ. It is these who are the true Israel…. The others have gone away from the law because they have not believed in him whom the law promised would alone be sufficient for salvation. Therefore they became apostate, because by not accepting Christ they became lawbreakers. Therefore, of that great number only those who God foreknew would believe have been saved. Commentary on Paul's Epistles.

This shows that the Lord is the cornerstone, uniting both walls in himself. Hosea's testimony is spoken of the Gentiles, but the Lord unites both Jews and Gentiles, according to what he said in the gospel about the latter: "I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd."

If by remnant … we are to understand not election of the justified to eternal life but election of those who are to be justified, that kind of election is truly hidden and cannot be known by us, who must regard all men as parts of a single lump of clay. If some claim to be able to know it, I must confess my own weakness in this matter.

The fact that the Jews will be converted is certain because of Isaiah and the Apostle who teaches authoritatively: "Though the number of the children of Israel are as the sands of the sea, the remnant shall be saved." And again: "A partial blindness only has befallen Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles should enter." The Jews oppose to the fact that none of the prophesied peace has come about as yet. But the prophet is not speaking of the first advent nor of the first calling, but of the last, when "the Lord will have His day against all that is arrogant." Nor should it be understood that in so doing, the Lord is dismissing these branches.

"For Esaias," he says, "crieth concerning Israel." That is, speaks out boldly, and uses no dissimulation. Why then lay a charge against us, when they afore declared the same thing with more than trumpet's loudness? And what does Isaiah cry? "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved."

Do you see that he too does not say that all are to be saved, but that those that are worthy shall? For I regard not the multitude, he means, nor does a race diffused so far distress me, but those only do I save that yield themselves worthy of it. And he does not mention the "sand of the sea" without a reason, but to remind them of the ancient promise whereof they had made themselves unworthy. Why then are you troubled, as though the promise had failed, when all the Prophets show that it is not all that are to be saved?

Here Isaiah showed that only a few Jews would believe.

He was not satisfied with pointing to Hosea, but brings Isaiah as a witness as well, who "proclaims," that is, boldly and fearlessly, that not all the Israelites will be saved, but those worthy of salvation (for this is what the remnant means, that is, the chosen), whom God left and set apart, that is, as worthy. By saying "as the sand of the sea," he reminds them of the Old Testament promise, of which they had made themselves unworthy. Therefore, do not be troubled, as though the promise has been broken. All the prophets foretell that not all are worthy of salvation.

Then, when he says Isaiah cried out, he proves his proposition with respect to the Jews and presents two texts from Isaiah. The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe; the second particularly to the apostles, at and Isaiah foretold. First, therefore, he says: we have indicated what Hosea said about the gentiles, but Isaiah cried out, i.e., clearly speaks about the conversion of Israel: cry, cease not, lift up your voice like a trumpet (Isa 58:1). In this first citation he first shows how few will be converted from Israel, saying: if the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, i.e., innumerable in light of the multitude of nations: I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore (Gen 22:17); Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea (1 Sam 4:20), a remnant shall be saved, i.e., not all, not the majority, but a certain few who will be left after the pruning: I am become as one who gleans in autumn the grapes of the vintage (Mic 7:1); at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace (Rom 11:5).

This has been done in Christ, who said: "Moses wrote about me."

"He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness," he says, "because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." What he means then is somewhat of this sort. There is no need of fetching a circuit, and of trouble, and the vexation of the works of the Law, for the salvation is by a very short way. For such is faith, it holds salvation in a few short words. "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Now you see what this, "the Lord shall make a short word upon earth," is. And what is indeed wonderful is, that this short word carries with it not salvation only, but also righteousness.

The historical sense is that, just as I shorten and finish off a sentence, so God will accomplish this with all speed. But in prophecy, the shortened sentence is understood to mean the New Testament, because everything is briefly summarized in it.

Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness," He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance, to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord-that is, Christ" was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth."

Now he shows how the remnant will be saved, and says that there is no need to labor, to go far, and to exhaust oneself with works of the law. God, he says, who brings to completion and accomplishes the word of faith in a short way throughout all the earth, will do this "in righteousness," that is, in order to justify those who have accepted it. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9). This is the shortened word, that is, the brief sayings of faith.

Second, at for he shall finish his word, he cites the cause of salvation: first, the efficacy of the word of the Gospel, saying: for he shall finish his word and cut it short in equity. Note here a twofold efficacy of the evangelical word. The first is that the word is fulfilling, i.e., perfective: the law made nothing perfect (Heb 7:19); but the Lord says, I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill (Matt 5:17), because he applied the truth to the figures of the law, explained the moral precepts of the law properly, removed occasions for transgressing them and even added counsels of perfection. Thus he said to the young man who had kept all the precepts of the law: one thing is lacking to you. If you would be perfect, go and sell what you possess and give to the poor (Matt 19:21). For this reason he said to his disciples: you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48). The second efficacy is that the word is cut short. This is suitably joined to the first efficacy, because the more perfect a word is the more profound it is and, as a consequence, simpler and briefer. Now the word of the Gospel shortens the words of the law, because it included all the figurative sacrifices of the law in one true sacrifice, in which Christ offered himself as a victim for us (Eph 5:2). Furthermore, it includes all the moral precepts of the law in the two precepts of charity: on these two precepts depend the law and the prophets (Matt 22:40). Hence he says cut short in equity, either because nothing is omitted of the multitude of figures and precepts of the law, but all are included in the brevity of the Gospel; or because nothing remains of them to be observed but what is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason: all your commands are equitable (Ps 118:72). This should be understood so that the sense is: the word of the Gospel will shorten and perfect in equity. Second, when he says because a short word, he gives the reason for this efficacy, saying, for the Lord upon the earth, i.e., when he lives on earth as man: afterwards he was seen upon earth and conversed with men (Bar 3:38), will make a short word. For the word which the Lord himself spoke in the flesh should be more perfect and powerful than the words he spoke through the prophets, as it says in Hebrews: God, who, at sundry time and in diverse manners, spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son (Heb 1:1). Or, in another way: for the Lord, i.e., God the Father, will make a short word, i.e., incarnate, because the Son of God emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. He is called brief, not because anything was subtracted from the fullness or greatness of his divinity, but because he underwent our exile and smallness. This decree is considered, however, in Isaiah, where according to our account it is thus said: for if your people, O Israel, shall be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them shall be converted. The abridged consumption shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, and an abridgment in the midst of all the land (Isa 10:22–23).

This seed, which alone remains reserved for the conversion of the human race is Christ and his teaching, as he himself said: "The seed is the Word of God." Therefore what was long ago promised to us who have been delivered from the burden of the law remains for our redemption, so that by receiving the forgiveness of sins we might not be punished by the law and perish as Sodom did.

"And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and had been made like unto Gomorrha." Here again he shows another thing, that not even those few were saved from their own resources. For they too would have perished, and met with Sodom's fate, that is, they would have had to undergo utter destruction (for they of Sodom were also destroyed root and branch, and left not even the slightest remnant of themselves,) and they too, he means, would have been like these, unless God had used much kindness to them, and had saved them by faith. And this happened also in the case of the visible captivity, the majority having been taken away captive and perished, and some few only being saved.

This may also be said of Christ, which is how Cyril of Alexandria interpreted it.

What children are these that the Lord has left? No doubt this means what the apostle expounds elsewhere, when he says that it was said to Abraham: "I shall give this land to you and to your seed." He did not say "to your seeds," as if to many, but to your seed, as if to one, and that one is Christ.Nor was it an accident that Isaiah called the remnant a seed. It was so called because it was meant to be sown in the earth and bear much fruit. In this way he teaches that Christ must also be sown, that is, buried in the earth, from which he would rise and bear fruit in the whole multitude of the church.

Predicted is a good choice of words, because the same thing as he mentioned [in verses 27-28] was written even earlier. God did not allow a few righteous people to perish along with a host of the ungodly. Or this text may mean that this would have happened had Christ, Abraham's offspring, not been sent to set the people free. The interpretation of the objectors, however, is that it would have happened, unless God had wished to call at least a few from among the Jews.

Having said that the remnant will be saved, he now explains what this means, and says that God left us a chosen seed and bread, for the word "left" he used instead of "chose," so that if God had not preserved it, we would have been subjected to destruction, like the Sodomites and Gomorrahites, as those condemned for their sins.

Then, when he says and as Isaiah foretold, he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the apostles, saying: and as Isaiah foretold: unless the Lord of the Sabbaoth, that is, of armies or power, had left us, namely, in his mercy, a seed, i.e., the word of the Gospel: the seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11); or a seed, i.e., Christ; and to your seed which is Christ (Gal 3:16); or a seed, i.e., the apostles: that which shall stand therein shall be a holy seed (Isa 6:13), we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah. For the sin of the Jews was greater than that of the men of Sodom: the iniquity of my people has been greater than the sin of Sodom (Lam 4:6) and your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done (Ezek 16:48). Consequently, it was an act of divine mercy that the Jews were not totally exterminated as were the Sodomites: the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed (Lam 3:22).

God is the true and lasting righteousness, if he is acknowledged. For what is more righteous that to know God the Father, from whom all things come, and Christ his Son, through whom all things come? Therefore the first part of righteousness is to acknowledge the Creator, and the next part is to keep what he commands.

"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness."

Here at last is the clearest answer. For since he had used a proof as well from facts ("for they are not all Israel that are of Israel") as from the case of the forefathers Jacob and Esau, and from the prophets Hosea and Isaiah, he further gives the most decisive answer, after first adding to the perplexity. The points discussed, then, are two; one that the Gentiles attained, and the other that they attained it without following after it, that is, without taking pains about it. And again in the Jews' case also there are two difficulties of the same kind; one that Israel attained not, the other that, though they took pains, they attained not. Whence also his use of words is more emphatical. For he does not say that they had, but that they "attained to righteousness." For what is especially new and unusual is, that they who followed after it attained not, but they which followed not after it attained.

It is one thing to pursue righteousness and another to have it implanted within. A person who tries by much teaching and reading to obtain something is said to pursue it.… In this sense, the Gentiles, who did not have the tables of the law or the written Word, cannot be said to have pursued righteousness. Nevertheless, they had it in them because the natural law had taught it to them. Therefore, they were close to that righteousness which is of faith, that is, to Christ.

If this is spoken in the person of the apostle, Paul here once again imagines that the Jews might say: "If it is not true, as we say, that it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, why have the Gentiles found righteousness, which they never sought before, while Israel could not find it, although they have always sought it?" But if the whole of the above thought belongs to the objectors, the apostle is here replying and summarizing the issue by saying: "What shall I say to these objections which are presented to us except that the Gentiles believed as soon as they were called and that the Jews refused to believe?" Righteousness is by faith, and the Jews refused to believe.

Here he gives the clearest resolution, showing why the Gentiles were accepted and the Israelites were rejected. The Gentiles, he says, holding to the righteousness of faith, were indeed justified.

Then he draws the conclusion from the above, when he says what then shall we say? First, with respect to the gentiles; second, with respect to the Jews, at but Israel. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he draws his conclusion, saying: what then shall we say, in the light of the foregoing? I say it is this, namely, that the gentiles have attained it, i.e., justice, by which they are called sons: and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were justified (1 Cor 6:11). And this, indeed, from God's calling and not from any merits, because he says, the gentiles who did not follow justice. At that time you were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12). Second, he explains what he calls justice that is of faith, i.e., not that which consists in works. For the gentiles were not converted in order to observe the justice of the law, but to be justified through faith in Christ: the justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ upon all who believe (Rom 3:22).

Faith is the fulfilling of the law. It is because the Gentiles have faith that they appear to fulfill the whole law. But the Jews, who out of envy did not believe in the Savior, because they claimed the righteousness which is commanded in the law, i.e., the sabbath, circumcision, etc., did not come to the law. In other words, they did not fulfill the law, and those who do not fulfill the law are guilty of it.

Israel pursued the law of righteousness according to the letter but did not fulfill the law. What law? No doubt the law of the Spirit.

Paul explains once again why the Jews did not find righteousness. Having wrongly gloried in their works they refused to believe and rejected grace on the ground that they were righteous already.

While the Israelites, ceaselessly seeking the "law of righteousness," that is, the law of works, did not attain to righteousness; because the law, which consisted of works, was not able to justify.

Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion as regards the Jews. And first he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, i.e., the people of the Jews, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. The law of justice is the law of the spirit of life through which men are made just and which the Jewish people did not attain, although they pursued it by observing the shadow of this spiritual law: the law has but a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1). Or by following after the law of justice, i.e., the law of Moses, which is the law of justice, if it is well understood, because it teaches justice. Or it is called the law of justice, because it does not make men truly, but only outwardly, righteous, as long as sins are avoided not from love but from fear of the punishment that the law inflicted: hearken to me, you who pursue that which is just and you who seek the Lord (Isa 51:1); hearken to me, you who know what is just, my people, who have my law in your heart (Isa 51:7).

The Jews rejected faith, which as I have said is the fulfillment of the law, and instead claimed that they were justified by works, that is, by the sabbath, the new moons, circumcision and so on. They forgot that Scripture says that "the just shall live by faith."

Paul calls the Lord Christ a stumbling stone because those who did not accept the new covenant in him stumbled over him and by their unbelief fell from the grace of justification which was given to men through him.

"Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law." This is the clearest answer in the passage, which if he had said immediately upon starting he would not have gained so easy a hearing. But since it is after many perplexities, and preparations, and demonstrations that he sets it down, and after using countless preparatory steps, he has at last made it more intelligible, and also more easily admitted.

For this he says is the cause of their destruction: "Because it was not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law," that they wished to be justified. And he does not say, "by works," but, "as it were by the works of the Law," to show that they had not even this righteousness.

"For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone."

The apostle would never say that they did not fulfill the law which they pursued, which they had and held in their hands. Rather he is explaining why Israel was unable to fulfill the law. It was because they relied on works, not on faith.

The man who sees a stone does not stumble, but the blind man dashes himself against it. This is what happened to the Jews, who were blinded by their hatred and crucified Christ because they did not recognize him.

And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be "a stumbling-stone," if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God.

And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men," "a man set in the plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity: "to wit as having been set by the Father "for a stone of offence," and "made a little lower" by Him "than angels," He pronounces Himself "a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People.

It is impossible to be justified by the works of the law because it would be necessary to keep the whole law, which is not possible. But anyone who sins (which is inevitable) lies under the judgment of the law.

You ask: why did the Israelites not attain righteousness, even though they earnestly pursued it? Know that they sought justification not in faith, but as if in the works of the law.

Second, he assigns the cause, saying, why is it that although they observed the law, they did not fulfill the law? Because they did not observe the law in the proper way. And this is what he says: because they sought it not by faith, i.e., they sought to be made just not through faith in Christ but as it were of works. For they followed the figure and repudiated the truth: for by the works of the law no human being shall be justified before him (Rom 3:20). Third, he explains the cause assigned: first, he presents the explanation, saying, they have stumbled at the stumbling-stone, i.e., Christ, who is likened to a stumbling-stone; for just as a stone against which a man stumbles is not guarded against because it is small, so the Jews, seeing Christ clothed with our weakness, did not guard against stumbling over him: his look was as it were hidden and despised. Whereupon we esteemed him not (Isa 53:3); before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains (Jer 13:16), i.e., upon Christ and his apostles who are called dark mountains, because their great dignity is hidden.

There are many passages of Scripture where Christ is portrayed as a rock or a stone. The prophet Daniel calls him a stone which detaches itself without hands from the mountain, hitting and threatening all the kingdoms and filling the whole earth. This clearly refers to Christ. And in the law the rock from which the waters flowed is called Christ, as the apostle Paul himself testifies. And the apostle Peter says to the Jews: "This is the stone which the builders rejected."The Jews did not want to compare Christ's words with his deeds lest perhaps they might recognize that it was not absurd for him to say that he had come down from heaven.… This was the rock of offense as far as the Jews were concerned. The rock was undoubtedly the human flesh of the Savior. It detached itself without hands, because it was made of a virgin by the Holy Spirit without the participation of a male.

"As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed." You see again how it is from faith that the boldness comes, and the gift is universal; since it is not of the Jews only that this is said, but also of the whole human race. For every one, he would say, whether Jew, or Grecian, or Scythian, or Thracian, or whatsoever else he may be, will, if he believes, enjoy the privilege of great boldness.

But the wonder in the Prophet is that he foretells not only that they should believe, but also that they should not believe. For to stumble is to disbelieve. As in the former passage he points out them that perish and them that are saved, where he says, "If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved." And, "If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we should have been as Sodoma." And, "He hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles;" so here too he implies that some will believe, and some will stumble. But stumbling comes of not taking heed, of gaping after other things. Since then they did give heed to the Law, they stumbled on the stone, "And a stone of stumbling and rock of offence" he calls it from the character and end of those that believe not.

It was foretold that Christ would be the stumbling stone and the rock of offense precisely because many take offense at his birth and death. … Nobody who believes, not just the Jew, will be put to shame by former sins.

It was fitting that the mystery of the passion should be set forth in predictions, for the more incredible it was, the more likely it was to have been a stumbling stone if it had been openly predicted.

Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed "for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence." I omit the rest of the passage.

People stumble when they stop paying attention to where they are going and look elsewhere. This is what happened to the Jews. Because they were so busy adding extras to the law, they failed to notice the stone which the prophets predicted.

He stumbles who gazes at something extraneous and does not pay attention to what is under his feet. So too the Jews, gazing at the law, stumbled over Christ, that is, they did not believe. And Christ is called a stumbling stone and a rock of offense in relation to the end and disposition of those who did not believe. For in Himself He is laid as a foundation and support; because it is said: "he who believes in Him shall not be put to shame" (Isa. 28:16), whether Gentile or Jew, so that faith, not works, accomplishes and justifies all things.

Second, he cites an authority for this, saying: as it is written, namely, in Isaiah. Here the Apostle gathers together the words of Isaiah found in various places. For it says in Isaiah: behold, I will lay a stone in the foundations of Zion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation (Isa 28:16). From this he takes the first part of his quotation: behold, I lay in Zion a stone, i.e., as a foundation, by which is meant that by divine command Christ was established as the foundation of the Church: for no other foundation can anyone lay that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11). Again it says in Isaiah: he shall be for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel (Isa 8:14). He uses this in the middle of the quotation where he says: a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall. Here the stumbling refers to their ignorance, because it says in 1 Corinthians: if they had known this, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8); but the falling refers to their unbelief by reason of which they persecuted Christ and his apostles: we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews (1 Cor 1:23); behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel (Luke 2:34). The end of the quotation is taken from Isaiah: he who believes, let him not hasten (Isa 28:16). In place of this he says, and whosoever believes in him shall not be confounded, namely, because he will receive a reward from him: you who fears the Lord, hope in him: and your reward shall not be made void (Sir 2:8). The Apostle takes these words according to the Septuagint. Its sense pertains to what is in our text: he who believes, let him not hasten, for he seems to hasten, who considers himself deceived, because he does not quickly get what he hoped.