Romans 9:6–19

Because the promises which had been given to the Jews had been transferred to the Gentiles, Paul wanted to avoid the charge that God had lied about his promises, and so he shows how God remains faithful. The Scriptures make it clear that it was not those who were Israelites according to the flesh but those who by their godliness showed that they were worthy to be Israelites who were called children of Abraham.

"Not as though the word of God had taken none effect." To show that he had courage to bear all these things for the word of God, that is, the promise made to Abraham. For as Moses seemed to be pleading for the Jews, yet was doing everything for God's glory (for he says, "Lest they say, Because He was not able to save them, He led them forth to destroy them in the wilderness"; stay Thy wrath), so also does Paul, That they may not say (he means) that the promise of God has fallen to the ground, and He has disappointed us of that. He vouched to us, and this word has not issued in deed, I could wish to be accursed.

This then was why he did not speak of the Gentiles (for to them no promises had been made by Him, nor had they worshipped Him, wherefore neither did any blaspheme Him on their account), but it was for the Jews who had both received the promise, and had also been brought into closer connection with Him than others, that he expressed this wish.

Since Paul has said above that he is upset that the people of Israel had been shut out of the kingdom by their own fault, for all these things had belonged to them, he shows here that those who do not believe are not sons of Abraham, lest someone think that he was opposed to all Jews and retort: "Did God then lie to Abraham?"

I, he says, am inflamed by the fact that God is blasphemed, and therefore expressed the desire that all be saved. But if not all are saved, it does not follow from this that God lied in the promises given to the fathers, and that His word did not come true. He fulfilled what was promised, even though the blasphemers say that He promised to some and gave to others.

After asserting the greatness of the Jews, the Apostle now shows that it did not refer to those who descended according to the flesh from the ancient patriarchs but to the spiritual progeny chosen by God. First, he shows that this greatness arises from God's selection; second, that this selection applies generally to Jew and gentiles, at even us, whom also he has called (Rom 9:24). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how from God's choice men obtain spiritual greatness; second, he raises a question about the justice of God's choice, at what shall we say then? (Rom 9:14). In regard to the first he does two things: First, he states his proposition; second, shows it, at but in Isaac. Concerning the first, he does two things. First he sets out the firmness of the divine election; second, he shows in whom it is accomplished, at for all are not Israelites. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the promises, the adoption of sons, and glory referred to people whose fall is to me a source of great sadness and unceasing sorrow. But it is not as though the word of God has failed, i.e., was frustrated, because although it has found no place in those who had fallen, it has a place in others: the word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose (Isa 55:11); forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed (Ps 119:89). Then he shows how and in whom God's word has failed, when he says for all are not Israelites. In regard to this it should be noted that the Jews boasted mainly of two things, namely, Abraham, who first received the pact of circumcision from God (Gen 17) and Jacob or Israel, all of whose descendants were counted as God's people. This was not true of Isaac, for the descendants of his son Esau did not belong to God's people. Hence the Apostle states his proposition: first, by a comparison with Jacob: for all are not Israelites who are of Israel, i.e., from Jacob according to the flesh, are true Israelites, to whom God's promises belong, but those who are upright and see God by faith: fear not, Jacob, and thus most just whom I have chosen (Isa 44:2). Hence the Lord also said to Nathanael: behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile (John 1:47). Now this name, Israel, had been put on Jacob by an angel (Gen 32:28). Second, he states the same things by comparison with Abraham, saying: neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, sons, i.e., are not the spiritual sons of Abraham to whom God promised the blessings, but only those who imitate his faith and works: if you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did (John 8:40).

What Paul wants us to understand is that not all are worthy because they are children of Abraham, but only those who are children of the promise, that is, whom God foreknew would receive his promise, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.… Abraham believed and received Isaac on account of his faith, because he believed in God. By this the mystery of the future faith was indicated, that they would be brothers of Isaac who had the same faith by which Isaac was born, because Isaac was born as a type of the Savior by the promise. Thus whoever believes that Christ Jesus was promised to Abraham is a child of Abraham and a brother of Isaac. Abraham was told that all the nations would be blessed in his offspring. This happened not in Isaac, but in him who was promised to Abraham in Isaac, that is, Christ, in whom all the nations are blessed when they believe. Therefore the other Jews are children of the flesh, because they are deprived of the promise and cannot claim Abraham's merit, because they do not follow the faith by which Abraham is counted worthy.

Paul wants to say that it is not those who are of Abraham's flesh who are his children, but those who are of the promise, who are godly and just, whom God promised according to his foreknowledge would be children of Abraham, just as Isaac was made righteous by the promise.

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word hath not fallen to the ground. Of what kind, pray, is the seed then? It is no saying of mine, he means, but the Old Testament itself explains itself by saying as follows, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." What is, "In Isaac?" Explain.

Not all Jews are children of Abraham, but some still are; and if not all Israelites are from Israel, then some … are from the Gentiles. Even so, the sons of Abraham were named in Isaac alone and not in Ishmael, although he too descended from Abraham's line.

Although it was beyond the capacity of nature, Abraham became a father by divine generosity. Paul says this, even though Ishmael was also Abraham's son and moreover, he was the firstborn. Therefore why do you boast, O Jew, that you are the only one to be descended from Abraham? For if you think that Ishmael does not count because he was the son of a slave, you are wrong. Holy Scripture reckons descent through the father and not through the mother. After all, the holy apostle could have mentioned the children born to Abraham through Keturah and shown that although they were born to a free woman they were not recognized as Abraham's seed. It would also have been easy for Paul to show that the twelve sons of Jacob had different mothers, and four of them were the children of slaves, yet all of them belonged to Israel, and none of them was hurt by his mother's slavery.… Here Paul wanted to insist that it was not the entire race of Abraham which received the blessing. Rather, only one of his sons was blessed, and the others were rejected.

God, he says, fulfilled what was promised. He said: "To you I will give it, and to your offspring" (Gen. 13:15). So then, let us see what this offspring is. Not all who descended from Abraham are simply his offspring, and not all who descended from Israel are Israelites, but those born after the example of Isaac and distinguished by the virtue of Israel, through which he saw God. For he did not say: who are from Jacob, but: "from Israel," mentioning the more honorable name. Therefore, if you understand who is born after the example of Isaac, you will find that the promise is not false: for to such were the promises given. Therefore God by no means deserves reproach: what He said, He also fulfilled, even though some do not understand this.

Then he clarifies his statement, at but in Isaac. First, in regard to Abraham; second, in regard to Jacob, at and not only she. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying, but in Isaac will your seed be called. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Genesis 21, when describing the expulsion of Ishmael. As if to say: not all who were born from Abraham according to the flesh belong to that seed to whom the promises were made, as it says in Galatians: to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed (Gal 3:16), but those who are like Isaac.

"That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, these are counted for the seed." And observe the judgment and depth of Paul's mind. For in interpreting, he does not say, "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not" the children of Abraham, but, "the children of God:" so blending the former things with the present, and showing that even Isaac was not merely Abraham's son.

And what he means is something of this sort: as many as have been born as Isaac was, they are sons of God, and of the seed of Abraham. And this is why he said, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." That one may learn that they who are born after the fashion of Isaac, these are in the truest sense Abraham's children. In what way was Isaac born then? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of the promise.

Ishmael was born of a maidservant by sexual intercourse, but Isaac was begotten by supernatural means from old people, by God's promise. So the promise, which Abraham's faith merited, now makes Christians sons of Abraham, so that Abraham is indeed the father of many nations.

Not I, he says, am explaining to you what the true seed of Abraham is, but the Old Testament, which says: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12). Therefore those who were born after the example of Isaac, that is, according to the promise, are truly children of Abraham, and especially of God. For everything was accomplished by the word of God. Therefore, the word of God was fulfilled, but God granted what was promised to the true seed, that is, to the believers from among the Gentiles, who became children of God just as Isaac, because they too were of the promise. But if the Jews say that the words "in Isaac shall thy seed be called" mean that those born of Isaac are reckoned as the seed of Abraham, then one must also honor the Idumeans and all who descended from him, because their forefather Esau was a son of Isaac. But the Idumeans are not only not called sons of Abraham, but are even quite foreign to the Israelites and are called aliens.

Then he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis, when he says that is to say, not they who are the sons. To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Galatians: Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave, namely, Ishmael, was born according to the flesh (Gal 4:22), because he was born according to the law and custom of the flesh from a young woman: the son of the free woman, namely, Isaac, through promise and not according to the flesh, i.e., not according to the law and custom of the flesh, because he was born from a sterile, old woman (Gen 18:10); although he was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the substance of the flesh he received from his parents. From this the Apostle decides that those adopted into the sonship of God are not the sons of the flesh, i.e., not because they are the bodily descendants of Abraham, but they are accounted for the seed, to whom was made the promise, who are the sons of the promise, i.e., those who are made sons of Abraham because they imitate his faith, as it says in Matthew: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt 3:9). Thus, Ishmael, born according to the flesh, was not numbered among the seed, but Isaac, born by the promise, was.

This prefigures Christ, because Christ was promised to Abraham as a future son, in whom the word of the promise would be fulfilled.

This passage [to v. 29] is rather obscure.

"At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son." This promise then and word of God it was that fashioned Isaac, and begat him. For what if a womb was its instrument and the belly of a woman? Since it was not the power of the belly, but the might of the promise that begat the child. Thus are we also gendered by the words of God. Since in the pool of water it is the words of God which generate and fashion us. For it is by being baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that we are gendered. And this birth is not of nature, but of the promise of God.

For as after first foretelling the birth of Isaac, He then accomplished it; so ours also He had announced before, many ages ago by all the Prophets, and afterwards brought it to pass. You know how great He has set it forth as being, and how, as He promised a great thing, He furnished it with abundant ease! But if the Jews were to say, that the words, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," mean this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens. You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of baptism from above was sketched out beforehand.

And Isaac was born not according to the law and power of nature, but by the power of the promise. "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son" (cf. Gen. 18:10). So then, Isaac was formed and born by the word of God. In the same way over us, the children of God, in the baptismal font, as if in a womb, the words of God are pronounced, which also form us; because we, being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, are born. And just as there God promised the birth of Isaac and then fulfilled it, so also our birth He promised through the prophets and then brought it to fulfillment. Therefore the words "in Isaac shall thy seed be called" should be understood thus: the seed of Abraham are those who were born after the pattern of Isaac's birth, that is, by the word of God.

Third, at for this is the word of promise, he proves that his explanation is valid, when he says that the children of the promise are the ones signified by Isaac, namely, because Isaac was born as the result of a promise. Hence he says: for this is the word of promise. Indeed, this is the statement the angel or the Lord through an angel made to Abraham: about this time will I come, by which the time of grace is signified: when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son (Gal 4:4) and Sarah shall have a son on account of the promise. Hence, it is said: so that we might receive adoption of sons (Gal 4:5).

Paul says that Sarah was not the only one to give birth in a typological manner. Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, did the same, though in a different way. Isaac was born as a type of the Savior, but Jacob and Esau were born as types of two peoples, believers and unbelievers, who come from the same source but are nevertheless very different.… One person represents the entire race, not because he is their physical ancestor but because he shares their relationship to God. There are children of Esau who are children of Jacob, and vice versa. It is not because Jacob is praised that all those descended from him are worthy to be called his children. Nor is it because Esau was rejected that all those descended from him are condemned, for we see that Jacob the deceiver had unbelieving children, and Esau had children who were faithful and dear to God. There is no doubt that there are many unbelieving children of Jacob, for all the Jews, whether they are believers or unbelievers, have their origin in him. And that there are good and faithful children of Esau is proved by the example of Job, who was a descendent of Esau, five generations away from Abraham and therefore Esau's grandson.

The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer from the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger." From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac." The subject in question was an important one. Hence he turns to several arguments, and endeavors by all means to solve the difficulty. For if it was at once strange and new for them to be cast out after so great promises, it is much more strange that we even should come into their good things, who did not expect anything of the kind.

I might, he implies, have mentioned the children by Keturah besides, but I do not. But to gain the victory from a vantage ground it is those born of one and the same father, and mother too, that I bring forward. For they were both sprung from Rebecca, and from Isaac the true-born, the elect, the son honored above all, of whom He said, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," who became "the father of us all;" but if he was our father, then should his sons have been our fathers; yet it was not so. You see how this happens not in Abraham's case only, but also in that of his son himself, and how it is faith and virtue in all cases that is conspicuous, and gives the real relationship its character.

Not only are Ishmael and Isaac (who were born of different mothers but the same father) not equal in the sight of God; Jacob and Esau too (who were born of Rebecca by a single conception), were separated in God's sight before they were born, because of their future faith, so that God's plan to choose the good and reject the evil already existed in his foreknowledge. Thus God has now chosen from among the Gentiles those whom he foreknew would believe and has rejected those of Israel whom he foreknew would not believe. Rebecca is thought to have been the first woman to have borne twins; it is because this strange thing has happened to her that she inquires of God.

God's foreknowledge does not prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent.

For thus unto Rebecca did God speak: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from thy bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less." Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and "greater" through the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be "less" in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy: beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and "greater" people-that is, the Jewish-must necessarily serve the "less; "and the "less" people-that is, the Christian-overcome the "greater.

Much more aptly would they have matched the Christian with the elder, and the Jew with the younger son, "according to the analogy of faith," if the order of each people as intimated from Rebecca's womb permitted the inversion: only that (in that case) the concluding paragraph would oppose them; for it will he fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it he true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel.

Paul reinforces here what he said earlier about Sarah and Isaac, in case someone might think that the election depended on the mother. For although Rebecca had twins, only one of them was chosen.

He has already proven that although Abraham had many different descendants, Isaac and those who are born like him were called his seed. Now he says: you can see this not only in Isaac, but, what is more important, in brothers born of the same father and the same mother, and moreover twins, that is, in Esau and Jacob. And they did not receive equal rights, but one was chosen and the other was hated. Therefore do not ask why God chose the Gentiles and made them the seed of Abraham, or rather of God, and rejected the Jews.

Then he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob, when he says and not only she. First, he states his intention; second, he clarifies his position, at for when the children were not yet born. First, therefore, he says: and not only she, namely, Sarah, begot a son about whom the promise was made, but when Rebecca also, having in her womb two sons, one of whom pertained to the promise and the other only to the flesh, had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For it says in Genesis: Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, and the Lord gave her conception, but the children struggled together within her (Gen 25:21ff.). And it should be noted that the Apostle cites this against the Jews who supposed that they would obtain justice through the merits of their forefathers, which is contrary to what is said about just men, namely, that they will deliver neither sons nor daughters but they alone will be delivered (Ezek 14:18). This is why John said to the Jews: do not presume to say: we have Abraham as our father (Matt 3:9). Paul, therefore, counters this opinion by reminding them that of Abraham's children one was chosen and the other rejected. But he could have ascribed this difference to the mothers, because Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman, or to the changed meriting state of the father; because while uncircumcised he begot Ishmael but circumcised he begot Isaac. To exclude any such subterfuge, therefore, he cites the case where one is chosen and the other rejected, even though both were born of the same father and the same mother at the same time and, indeed, from one coition.

Paul proclaims God's foreknowledge by citing these events, because nothing can happen in the future other than what God already knows. Therefore, knowing what each of them would become, God said: "The younger will be worthy and the elder unworthy." In his foreknowledge he chose the one and rejected the other. And in the one whom God chose his purpose remained, because nothing other than what God knew and purposed in him to make him worthy of salvation could happen. Likewise, the purpose of God remained in the one whom he rejected. However, although God knew what would happen, he is not a respecter of persons and condemns nobody before he sins, nor does he reward anyone until he conquers.

This moves some people to suppose that the apostle Paul had taken away the freedom of the will, by which we either please God by the good of faithfulness or offend him by the evil of unfaithfulness. These people say that God loved the one and hated the other before either one was born or could have done either good or evil. But we reply that God did this by foreknowledge, by which he knows what even the unborn will be like in the future. But let no one say God chose the works of the man whom he loved, although these works did not yet exist, because he knew in advance what they would be. If God elected works, why does the apostle say that election is not according to works? Thus we should understand that we do good works through love, and we have love by the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says himself: "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us."Therefore no one should glory in his works as if they were his own, for he does them by the gift of God, since love itself works good in him. What then has God elected? If he gives the Holy Spirit, through whom love works good, to whomever he wishes, how does he choose whom to give him to? If he does not choose according to merit, it is not election, for everyone is equal prior to merit, and it is impossible to choose between totally equal things. But since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not choose works (which he himself bestows), for he gives the Holy Spirit so that through love we might do good works. Rather, he chooses faith. For unless each one believes in him and perseveres in his willingness to receive, he does not receive the gift of God (i.e., the Holy Spirit), through whom, by an outpouring of love, he is enabled to do good works. Therefore God did not choose anyone's works (which he himself will give) by foreknowledge, but by foreknowledge he chose faith. He chose the one whom he knew in advance would believe in him, and to him he has given the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he may attain everlasting life. Belief is our work, but good deeds belong to him who gives the Holy Spirit to believers. This argument was used against certain Jews who, once they believed in Christ, gloried in the works they had done before receiving grace. They claimed that they had merited the grace of the gospel by these earlier works, even though only a person who has received grace can do good works. Furthermore, grace is such that the call comes to the sinner when he has no merit and prevents him from going straight to his damnation. But if he follows God's call of his own free will, he will also merit the Holy Spirit, through whom he can do good works. And remaining in the Spirit (also by free will) he will merit eternal life, which cannot be marred by any corruption.

No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling; they do not precede it.… Unless the mercy of God in calling precedes faith, no one can even believe and thus begin to be justified and to receive the power to do good works. So grace comes before all merit. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from the God who called him and not from any meritorious works of his own.

We know that children not yet born have done nothing either good or evil in their own life, nor have they any merits from a previous life, which no individual can have as his own. They come into the miseries of this life, their carnal birth according to Adam involves them at the moment of their nativity in the contagion of the primal death, and they are not delivered from the penalty of eternal death which a just verdict passing from one lays upon all unless they are born again in Christ through grace.

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good. And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, "the elder shall serve the younger." With what intent then did God say this? Because He doth not wait, as man doth, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knoweth which is the wicked and which not such.

And this took place in the Israelites' case also, in a still more wonderful way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and of Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the Israelites' case, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshipped the calf. Yet notwithstanding some had mercy shown them, and others had not.

The clearing up then of the whole passage, to give the whole sense summarily, is here brought out by that blessed person. But that this may be clearer, let us investigate the things he says also one by one; this knowing, that what the blessed Paul aimed at was, to show by all that he said that God only knoweth who are worthy, and no man whatever knoweth, even if he seem to know ever so well, but that in this sentence of his there are sundry aberrations. For He that knoweth the secrets of the hearts, He only knoweth for a certainty who deserve a crown, and who punishment and vengeance. Hence it is that many of those, by men esteemed good, He convicts and punishes, and those suspected to be bad He crowns, after showing it not to be so; thus forming his sentence not after the judgment of us slaves, but after his own keen and uncorrupt decision, and not waiting for the issue of actions to look at the wicked and him who is not so therefrom.

Paul is saying all this in order to demonstrate that if either Isaac or Jacob had been chosen by God because of their merits and earned justification by the works of the flesh, then the grace which they merited could belong also to those who were descended from them according to flesh and blood. But in fact, since their election was not due to works, but to the purpose of God and the free will of him who called them, the grace of the promises is not fulfilled in the children of the flesh, but in the children of God, that is, in those who are likewise chosen according to God's purpose and adopted as sons.

Perhaps this happened so that it might be shown that even from a set of twins the one who does not believe is abandoned.

Here it is necessary for us to state in advance the meaning of what the apostle intends to discuss at length. Many were saying: why were the Gentiles preferred over the Jews? (For no one could say it was for virtue, because all had sinned.) The apostle gathers many difficulties that are incomprehensible to us but comprehensible to God alone. First he presents that between two twin brothers, the chosen one was chosen not for virtue, and the hated one was hated not for wickedness (for they had done neither good nor evil, since they were still in their mother's womb), but by election, by God's foreknowledge.

Then he clarifies his thesis, when he says for when the children were not yet born: first, by the authority of Genesis (Gen 25:24); second, by a text from the prophet Malachi, at as it is written. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when the children were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other in virtue of the promise. And just as his previous statement excluded the opinion of the Jews trusting in the merits of their forefathers, so this statement counters the error of the Manicheans who claimed that a person's life and death were controlled by the constellation under which he was born, against what is said in Jeremiah: be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear (Jer 10:2). Then when he continues: nor had done any good or evil, the Pelagian error is refuted which says that grace is given according to one's preceding merits, even though it says in Titus: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy (Titus 3:5). Both of these are shown false by the fact that before birth and before doing anything one of Rebecca's sons is preferred to the other. This also corrects Origen's error who supposed that men's souls were created when the angels were, and that they merited different lives depending on the merits they earned for the good or evil they had done there. This could not be true in the light of what is stated here, namely that for when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil. Against this also is Job: where were you when the morning stars praised me together and all the sons of God made joyful melody? (Job 38:7). For according to Origen's error, he could have answered: I was among those joyful sons of God. Second, he shows what could be understood from that promise by which one of the twins in the womb was chosen over the other. He says: in order that God's purpose, by which one would be greater than the other, might stand, i.e., be made firm: and this not by reason of merits but according to election, i.e., inasmuch as God himself spontaneously forechose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy, as it says in Ephesians: he chose us in himself before the foundation of the world that we should be holy (Eph 1:4). But this is a decree of predestination about which the same text says: predestined according to the purpose of his will (Eph 1:15).

No one could say that Jacob had conciliated God by meritorious works before he was born, so that God should say this of him.… Nor had Isaac conciliated God by any previous meritorious works, so that his birth should have been promised.… Good works do not produce grace, but are produced by grace.

Here Paul shows that the people who came afterward belonged to the promise after the manner of Isaac.

One was chosen and loved, and the other hated, so that everything might be the work of God and of His election and foreknowledge, and not from works, but from Him who calls.

Third, he sets down the promise, saying, not of works, for no works preceded it, as has been said: but of him who calls, i.e., through the grace of God calling, for it was said to her, i.e., Rebecca, that the elder, i.e., Esau, shall serve the younger, i.e., Jacob. This can be understood in three ways. In one way, as referring to the persons involved, and then Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, inasmuch as the persecution he launched against him ended in Jacob's benefit, as it says in Proverbs: the fool will serve the wise (Prov 11:29). Second, it can be referred to the people who sprang from each, because the Edomites were once subject to the Israelites, as it says in a psalm: upon Edom I cast my shoe (Ps 60:8). This seems to fit Genesis: the nations are in your womb; the one shall be stronger than the other (Gen 25:23). Third, it can be taken figuratively so that by the elder is understood the Jewish people, who were the first to receive the adoption of sons, in accord with Exodus, Israel is my firstborn son (Exod 4:22), and by the younger is understood the gentiles, who were called to the Father later and were signified by the prodigal son (Luke 15). The elder people in this case serve the younger, inasmuch as the Jews are our capsarii (slaves who carried boys' satchels to school), guarding the books from which the truths of our faith are drawn: search the Scriptures (John 5:39).

These things are said of the Jews … for not all who are called children of Abraham deserve to be so called, as I have already pointed out. Therefore Paul restricts his grief to the fact that he discovered that it was long ago predicted that not all would believe, and he grieves for them only because they refused to believe out of jealousy. They had the opportunity, however, as Paul demonstrates. At the same time, there was no point in grieving over those who were not predestined to eternal life, for God's foreknowledge had long ago decreed that they would not be saved. For who would cry over someone who is long dead? But when the Gentiles appeared and accepted the salvation which the Jews had lost, Paul's grief was stirred, but this was mainly because they were the cause of their own damnation.God knew those who would turn out to be people of ill will and he did not number them among the good, although the Savior said to the seventy-two disciples whom he chose as a second class and who later abandoned him: "Your names are written in heaven." But this was because of justice, since it is just that each person should receive his reward. For because they were good they were chosen for this service, and their names were written in heaven for the sake of justice, as I have said. But according to foreknowledge they were among the number of the wicked. For God judges according to his justice, not according to his foreknowledge. Thus he said to Moses: "If someone sins against me, I shall delete him from my book." The person who sins is deleted according to the justice of the Judge, but according to his foreknowledge his name was never in the book of life. The apostle John described these people as follows: "They went out from us but they were never of us, for if they had been of us they would have remained with us." There is no respect of persons in God's foreknowledge. For God's foreknowledge is that by which it is defined what the future will of each person will be, in which he will remain, by which he will either be condemned or rewarded. Some of those who will remain among the good were once evil, and some of those who will remain among the evil were once good.

If God hated Esau because he was a vessel made for dishonor, how could it be true that God hates nothing which he has made? For in that case, God hated Esau, even though he had made him as a vessel for dishonor. This knotty problem is solved if we understand that God is the Maker of all creatures. Every creature of God is good. Every man is a creature as man but not as sinner. God is the Creator both of the body and of the soul of man. Neither of these is evil, and God hates neither. He hates nothing which he has made. But the soul is more excellent than the body, and God is more excellent than both soul and body, being the maker and fashioner of both. In man he hates nothing but sin. Sin in man is perversity and lack of order, i.e., a turning away from the Creator, who is more excellent, and a turning to the creatures which are inferior to him. God does not hate Esau the man, but he does hate Esau the sinner.

It was many years after the event that Scripture testified to this in the words of the prophet Haggai [Malachi]. Paul added this quotation because he wanted to show that God's judgment is just, for while it was in accordance with his foreknowledge, the lives of both men later followed these different paths.

The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer from the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger." From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

The apostle shows that what had been told to Rebecca was fulfilled in her descendants.

Thus God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael and the children of Keturah. So also he chose Jacob over Esau, even though both were formed together in the womb. Why be surprised then, if God does the same thing nowadays, by accepting those of you who believe and rejecting those who have not seen the light?

As the prophet also says: "I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated" (Mal. 1:2). But why do I speak of these persons? All the Israelites worshipped the calf, yet some were punished and others were not. And Pharaoh was indeed cruel, but many others were also cruel: why then did punishment befall him alone? Do you see that this is incomprehensible to men but comprehensible to God alone? So also the election of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews appears groundless to us, yet in the eyes of God both are perfectly just. Such is the meaning of this entire passage.

Then he proves his point when he says as it is written, by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. A Gloss on this says that the statement, the elder shall serve the younger, was spoken from foreknowledge, but that the present statement results from judgment, i.e., that God loved Jacob on account of his good works, just as he loves all the saints: I love those who love me (Prov 8:17), but he hated Esau on account of his sins: the Highest hates sinners (Eccl 12:7). But because man's love is preceded by God's love: not that we loved God, but that he has first loved us (1 John 4:20), we must say that Jacob was loved by God before he loved God. Nor can it be said that God began to love him at a fixed point in time; otherwise his love would be changeable. Consequently, one must say that God loved Jacob from all eternity, as it says in Jeremiah: I have loved you with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3). Now these words of the Apostle identify in God three things pertaining to the saints, namely, election, by which is understood God's predestination and election. In God these are really the same, but in our understanding they differ. For it is called God's love, inasmuch as he wills good to a person absolutely; it is election, inasmuch as through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. But it is called predestination, inasmuch as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions predestination comes after love, just as the will's fixation on the end naturally precedes the process of directing things toward the end. Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in man. For in men, election precedes love, for a man's will is inclined to love a thing on account of the good perceived in it, this good also being the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixed his love on the thing he preferred. But God's love is the cause of every good found in a creature; consequently, the good in virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows upon God's willing it—which pertains to his love. Consequently, it is not in virtue of some good which he selects in a man that God loves him; rather, it is because he loved him that he prefers him to someone by election. But just as the love, about which we are speaking, pertains to God's eternal predestination, so the hatred about which we are speaking pertains to the rejection by which God rejects sinners. It should not be supposed that this rejection is temporal, because nothing in the divine will is temporal; rather, it is eternal. Furthermore, it is akin to love or predestination in one respect and different in another. It is akin in the sense that just as predestination is preparation for glory, so rejection is preparation for punishment: for a burning place has long been prepared, yes, for the king it is made ready (Isa 30:33). It is different in that predestination implies preparation of the merits by which glory is reached, but rejection implies preparation of the sins by which punishment is reached. Consequently, a foreknowledge of merits cannot be the reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be a reason for rejection on the part of the punishment prepared for the rejected, inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for the sins they have from themselves, not from God; the just he proposes to reward on account of the merits they do not have from themselves: destruction is your own, O Israel; your help is only in me (Hos 13:9).

What is to be said of infants who receive the sacrament of Christian grace, as is usual at that age, and thus undoubtedly have a claim to eternal life and the kingdom of heaven if they die at once, whereas if they are allowed to grow up, some become even apostates? Why is this, except that they are not included in that predestination and calling according to his purpose which is without repentance? Why some are included and others are not can be for a hidden reason but not for an unjust one.

Why does God not scourge all men mercifully in such a way so as not to allow anyone to be hardened against him? Either this is to be ascribed to the wickedness of those who have deserved to become hardened, or it is to be referred to the inscrutable judgments of God, which are often hidden but are never unjust.

All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named "called." For there is no unrighteousness with God. Those of either race who have believed, are "a peculiar people." And in the Acts of the Apostles you will find this, word for word, "Those then who received his word were baptized;" but those who would not obey kept themselves aloof. To these prophecy says, "If ye be willing and hear me, ye shall eat the good things of the land;" proving that choice or refusal depends on ourselves.

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Hence there is no such thing in the case of us and the Jews. And then he goes on with another thing, a more clear than this. And of what sort is it?

Paul was afraid that because he had argued that racial privilege is of no consequence in God's sight, or in case the Jews understood him to be saying that already at that time it was indicated that later people would be better people, they might think that he meant that God makes some people good and others evil, because, in the judgment of the Jews, it was unjust to punish those who had not voluntarily sinned, Paul also calls to mind the contrary texts which they usually used to support this view, and after replying to these examples with brief objections he shows that they should not be understood as they understand them.

Therefore, God is just both in relation to us, the Gentiles, and in relation to the Jews.

After showing that by God's choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling, the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice. First, he raises a question; second, he answers it, at God forbid! For he says to Moses; third, he objects against the solution, at you will say therefore to me: why does he still complain? First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that God chose one and rejected the other without any preceding merit. What shall we say then? Does this enable us to prove that there is injustice on God's part? It seems so. For it pertains to justice that things be dispensed equally to equals. But when differences arising from merit are removed, men are equal. Therefore, if without consideration of merits God dispensed unequally by choosing one and rejecting the other, it seems that there is injustice to him; contrary to what is said in Deuteronomy: God is faithful and without any iniquity (Deut 32:4); righteous are you, O Lord, and right are your judgments (Ps 119:137). It should be noted that Origen fell into error trying to solve this objection. For he says in his Periarchon that from the beginning God made only spiritual creatures and all were equal, lest he be charged with injustice for any inequality; later, differences among these creatures arose from differences of merit. For some of those spiritual creatures were turned to God by love, some more and some less; on this basis the various orders of angels were distinguished. Others turned from God, some more and some less; on this basis they were bound to bodies, either noble or lowly; some to heavenly bodies, some to bodies of demons, some to bodies of men. Accordingly, the reason for making and distinguishing bodily creatures is the sin of spiritual creatures. But this is against what is said in Genesis: God saw everything which he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31), which gives us to understand that goodness was the cause of producing bodily creatures, as Augustine says in The City of God. Therefore, we must set aside this opinion and see how the Apostle solves the problem when he says, God forbid! In regard to this he does two things. First, he solves the problem with respect to choosing the saints; second, with respect to hating and rejecting the wicked, at for the Scripture says. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes the scriptural text from which the solution comes; second, he draws the conclusion from it, at so then it is not of him.

This means that God will have mercy on those whom he knows will be converted and remain with him.… He will show mercy to those who, after they have sinned, return to him with a right heart. It is God's to give or to not give. He calls the ones whom he knows will obey and does not call those whom he knows will not obey.

It is not unjust for God to have mercy on those he wishes to have mercy on but not on others. For, as Paul says, God demonstrates through Moses what his mercy was like. He does not dispense mercy according to human standards, but according to the wisdom of God. For we are shown mercy not because of our own works but because of God, who has the power to show mercy.

God was merciful to us in the first place in that he called us while we were still sinners … and he continues to have mercy on us now that we believe. How does God have mercy a second time? He gives his Holy Spirit to the man who believes and asks for him. And having given the Spirit God will then have compassion on those to whom he has already shown compassion. That is to say, he will make the believer compassionate so that he may do good works through love. Let no one take the credit for acting compassionately, since it was by the Holy Spirit that God gave him this love, without which no one can be compassionate.God did not elect those who had done good works, but those who believed, so that he might enable them to do good works. It is our part to believe and to will and his part to give to those who believe and will the ability to do good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts in order to make us compassionate.

"For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," saith the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake.

"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Here again he adds force to the objection by dividing it in two and meeting it, and starting another fresh difficulty. But to make what I have said clearer, one must needs explain it. God, he means, said that "the elder shall serve the younger," before the travail. What then? "Is God unrighteous?" By no means. Now listen to what follows also. For in that case the virtue or the vice, might be the decisive thing. But here there was one sin on which all the Jews joined, that of the molten calf, and still some were punished, and some were not punished. And this is why He says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." For it is not thine to know, O Moses, he means, which are deserving of My love toward man, but leave this to Me. But if Moses had no right to know, much less have we. And this is why he did not barely quote the passage, but also called to our minds to whom it was said. For it is Moses, he means, that he is speaking to, that at least by the dignity of the person he might make the objector modest.

This means: "I will have mercy on him whom I have foreknown will be able to deserve compassion, so that I have already had mercy on him."

He adds, as was said above, another saying from the Old Testament as well, proving that God alone knows who is worthy of honor and who of punishment. Although all equally sinned when they cast the calf, God nonetheless had mercy on some, while others He handed over to the Levites for slaughter. And Moses, great before God, did not know the reason for this, yet you inquire into the reason why the Gentiles were preferred over the Jews, even though they were sinners? However, Paul could have stated this reason, as he did state it in another place, that the Israelites thought they were justified by works, while the Gentiles believed they were justified by faith and grace; yet he does not state it now, more than sufficiently shutting the mouths of the curious and persuading them not to scrutinize the judgments of God.

The text he adduces is from Exodus where the Lord said to Moses: I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me (Exod 33:19). But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: for the Lord says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I show mercy. The meaning is that all our blessings are ascribed to God's mercy, as it says in Isaiah: I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things the Lord has bestowed upon us; and: the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed (Isa 63:7); because his commiserations have not failed (Lam 3:22). The text Paul cites is explained in two ways in a Gloss, so that it solves the question and the objection in two ways. First, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., on him who is worthy of mercy. To amplify this he repeats: I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, i.e., on whom I judge worthy of compassion, as it says in a psalm: the Lord has compassion on those who fear him (Ps 103:13). It follows from this that although he imparts his blessings from mercy, he is nevertheless excused from injustice; for he gives to those who should be given to and does not give to one who should not be given to, according to the correctness of his judgment. But having mercy on one who is worthy can be understood in two ways: in one way so that one is counted worthy of mercy on account of preexisting works in this life, though not in another life, as Origen supposed. This belongs to the Pelagian heresy which taught that God's grace is given to men according to their merits. But this cannot stand, because, as has been stated, the good merits themselves are from God and are the effects of predestination. But there is another way in which one is considered worthy of mercy, not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits subsequent to grace; for example, if God gives a person grace and he planned from eternity to give him that grace which he foresaw would be used well. According to this the Gloss is saying that he has mercy on him who should be given mercy. Hence he says: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., by calling and bestowing grace, I will have mercy on him to whom I know beforehand that I will show mercy, knowing that he will be converted and abide with me. But it seems that not even this is a suitable explanation. For it is clear that nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for a predestination, even if it be taken as existing in God's foreknowledge, because the reason for a predestination is presupposed to the predestination, whereas the effect is included in it. But every benefit God bestows on a man for his salvation is an effect of predestination. Furthermore, God's benefits extend not only to the infusion of grace, by which a man is made righteous, but also to its use, just as in natural things God not only causes their forms but also all the movements and activities of those forms, inasmuch as God is the source of all movement in such a way that when he ceases to act, no movement or activity proceeds from those forms. But sanctifying grace and the accompanying virtues in the soul are related to their use as a natural form is related to its activity. Hence, it is said: O Lord, you have wrought for us all our works (Isa 26:12). Aristotle proves this in a particular way when he discusses the works of the human will. For since man is open to opposites, say to sitting or not sitting, it must be resolved by something else. But this is done by deliberation, which is followed by choosing one over the other. But again, since man has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, it will be necessary that something move him to deliberate. But since this does not proceed infinitely, there must be some external principal superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle is none other than God. In this way, then, the very use of grace is from God. But this does not mean that sanctifying grace is superfluous, any more than natural forms are superfluous, even though God works in all, as it is said: wisdom orders all things sweetly (Wis 8:1), because through their forms all things are inclined spontaneously, as it were, to that to which they are ordered by God. Consequently, it is impossible that the merits which follow grace are the reason for showing mercy or for predestination; the only reason is God's will, according to which he mercifully delivers certain ones. For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wages, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither. For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by his grace he delivers by his mercy alone; and so he is merciful to those whom he delivers, just to those whom he does not deliver, but unjust to none. Thus, the Apostle solves the question with a text which ascribes all to divine mercy. Yet it should be noted that God's mercy is viewed according to three aspects: first, according to predestination by which he proposed from all eternity to deliver certain ones: the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps 103:17); second, according to his calling and justifying, by which he saves men in time: he saved us in his mercy (Titus 3:5); third, according to the bestowal of glory, when he frees from all misery: who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy (Ps 103:4). Therefore, he says: I will have mercy, namely, by calling and justifying, on whom I have mercy by predestining and having compassion and finally by crowning with glory him on whom I have mercy by calling and justifying. This interpretation is more in keeping with the version before me: I will be gracious to whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me where divine mercy is clearly ascribed not to merits but solely to the divine will.

When Saul asked forgiveness for his sin he did not receive it, but David, when he confessed his sin, did receive forgiveness. However, it cannot be said on this basis that God judged unjustly by granting forgiveness to the one and withholding it from the other. For the one who looks on the heart knows in what spirit the penitent is making his request and whether it deserves to be heard. And although it is dangerous to try to figure out God's judgment, yet in the case of unbelievers, who reap the reward of their own minds, it cannot be said that God's judgment is unjust.Look at the stories of Saul and David and ask yourself what happened to them after God's judgment. Did Saul do what was right after he was refused mercy? Did he prove that God's judgment was unjust? Did David after receiving mercy turn his back on God? Or did he remain in him from whom he received mercy?

Paul does not take away the freedom of the will but says that our will is not sufficient unless God helps us, making us compassionate so that we might do good works by the gift of the Holy Spirit.… We cannot will unless we are called, and when we will after our calling neither our will nor our striving is enough unless God gives strength to our striving and leads us where he calls. It is therefore clear that it is not by willing nor by striving but by the mercy of God that we do good works, even though our will (which by itself can do nothing) is also present.

It is therefore true what Augustine says, that "He who created you without you will not justify you without you." It is also true that it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy. It is also true that no one can boast of merits, because God crowns nothing in us except his own gifts. For God has reserved to himself the gifts of grace to be freely bestowed, so that man may learn not to be ungrateful nor to glory in himself as though he had not received, but to glory in the Lord.

It is also true that, although free choice cannot of itself fulfill the law nor produce grace within itself, it is nevertheless inexcusable if it does not do what it can, because grace freely given is always at hand for admonition, with the aid of which it can do what lies within itself: which having been done, it may have grace making acceptable: which having been obtained, it may fulfill the divine law and do the will of God: which having been done, it may at last arrive at eternal beatitude on account of meritorious works, which are wholly from grace, and wholly also from free choice, although principally from grace: because, as Augustine says, "grace is compared to free choice as a rider to a horse," which rider indeed directs, leads, and conducts free choice to the harbor of eternal felicity, exercising us in the works of perfect virtue according to the gift of sevenfold grace itself.

God is not unjust simply because he does not give everyone what they deserve.

It is clear from this passage that the willing and running are ours, but the fulfillment of our willing and running belongs to the mercy of God. So it is that free will is preserved as far as our willing and running is concerned and that everything depends on the power of God as far as the fulfillment of our willing and running is concerned.

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

As then in the one case, he means, some were saved and some were punished, so here also. This man was reserved for this very purpose. And then he again urges the objection.

This must be understood in the light of what David says in the psalm: "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain." From this we learn that it is not because the builder sits idly by that God builds the house for him but because he works and expends as much labor and care as lies within human power, but yet it belongs to God to remove all the obstacles and bring the work to completion. Thus, man is called to work as hard as he can, but God will crown the work with success. Therefore it is godly and right for a man to leave the completion of his work to God and not to another human being. Likewise, Paul sowed and Apollos watered but God gave the increase, "so neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." In the same way, we can say that "it depends not upon man's will or exertion but upon God's mercy."

The Jewish argument here goes like this: "It does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs; God has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills." The apostle, though, does not take away what we possess in our own will.… For if the Jewish argument is correct, why does Paul run, as when he says: "I have finished the race," and why does he urge others to run? For this reason it is understood that here Paul takes the role of the one who questions (and refutes), not of the one who denies.

Isaac wanted to bless Esau; but Jacob hurried to the field so that, having caught game, he might receive the blessing from his father, and God by righteous judgment brought it about that Jacob, as entirely worthy, received the blessing. Here the apostle would seem to destroy free will; but in reality, no. Of a house we say that it is entirely the work of the master builder; although the master builder needs both materials and helpers in the construction, nevertheless, since it depends on him, we say that he built the whole house. So also of God we say that everything is His work, although God has need of our contribution as well. He accomplishes. He also gives the crowns, He also condemns; therefore we say that everything is the work of God.

Then he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited, when he says so then it is not of him. This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one way thus: so a man's salvation is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action, which running is spoken of in 1 Corinthians: so run that you may obtain (1 Cor 9:25); but of God who shows mercy, i.e., it proceeds from the sole mercy of God. What follows from the authority cited is found in Deuteronomy: do not say in your heart: it is because of my justice that the Lord has brought me into this land (Deut 9:4). But it can be understood in another sense: all things proceed from God's mercy; so then it is not of him who wills to will nor of him who runs to exert oneself, but of God who shows mercy, as it says in 1 Corinthians: it was not I but the grace of God which is with me (1 Cor 15:10), and in John: without me you can do nothing (John 15:5). But if this is all that is understood in this word, since even grace without man's free judgment does not will or strive, he could have said the converse, namely, it does not depend on God's mercy but on man's will or exertion, which is offensive to pious ears. Consequently, something more must be understood from these words, if first place is to be given to God's grace. For an action is attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary, as when we say that the hammer does not make the box but the carpenter by using the hammer. But man's will is moved to good by God, as it says above: all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom 8:14); therefore, an inward action of man is not to be attributed principally to man but to God: it is God who of his good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13). But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will. But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover.

This Pharaoh (this was a royal title among the Egyptians and not a personal name, just as the rulers of Rome are called Caesars), was guilty of a great many crimes and unfit to live. He would never repent or in any way earn the right to live with God. But if anyone thought that God had made a mistake or that he was unable to take revenge on Pharaoh, let him listen to what God says.… Pharaoh was used by God in order that many signs and plagues might be revealed through him. Even though he was really dead, he appeared to be alive for a short while so that all those who were without God might be frightened by the punishment and the torments which they saw being inflicted on him and confess the one true God, by whom this revenge was being wreaked. In the same way the ancient physicians used to open up the bodies of people who deserved to die, while they were still alive, in order to find out what the causes of their disease might be and thus by punishing the dying bring saving health to the living.

We read in Exodus [:] that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief. Nor should it be thought that Pharaoh did not obey because he could not, on the ground that his heart had already been hardened. On the contrary, Pharaoh had deserved his hardness of heart by his earlier unbelief. For in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith which is the beginning of merit, so that they might do good works by the gift of God. And in those whom he condemns unbelief and unfaithfulness are the beginning of punishment, so that by that very punishment they are permitted to do what is evil. on Romans Second, there are those who say that Pharaoh was hardened by God's patience, for after a plague from God was over Pharaoh became harder, and although God knew that Pharaoh had not repented he nevertheless wanted to show his forbearance even toward him. Pelagius's Commentary on Romans.

We read in Exodus [10:1] that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief. Nor should it be thought that Pharaoh did not obey because he could not, on the ground that his heart had already been hardened. On the contrary, Pharaoh had deserved his hardness of heart by his earlier unbelief.For in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith which is the beginning of merit, so that they might do good works by the gift of God. And in those whom he condemns unbelief and unfaithfulness are the beginning of punishment, so that by that very punishment they are permitted to do what is evil.

God's power is patience, and it is a very great power indeed. For who would not be overawed by the enormous patience of God? For he says that it is for this reason that he has agreed to let Pharaoh rule, that it may be shown how patient he is.

It is certain that God not only knows everyone's intention and will but that he foreknows them as well. Thus knowing and foreknowing, the good and just dispenser uses the motives and intention of each one in order to accomplish the works which the mind and will of each person has chosen.

The Jews explain this passage in the wrong way as well. It is expounded by Christian interpreters in one of two ways. First, there are those who say that since each one will be punished when the measure and degree of his sins is complete … and Pharaoh had exceeded his limit, God desired to make an example of him for the benefit of others … so that God's people might come to know his justice and power and neither dare to sin nor fear their enemies. The same thing that happened to Pharaoh happens when a doctor, seeking the cure for an illness, discovers a remedy in the course of torturing someone who has already been condemned to death for committing many crimes or when a judge, although he could punish a guilty man immediately, afflicts him first with various torments in order to rouse everyone's fear.Second, there are those who say that Pharaoh was hardened by God's patience, for after a plague from God was over Pharaoh became harder, and although God knew that Pharaoh had not repented he nevertheless wanted to show his forbearance even toward him.

As from those who made the calf, he reasons, some were saved and others punished, when God alone knew who was worthy of salvation and who of punishment: so, although there were many others who were wicked, only Pharaoh was subjected to the wrath of God. For this very reason, He says, I "raised you up," that is, I brought you, Pharaoh, into view, so that through you My power might be made known and many might restrain themselves, hearing of My name as just and mighty, throughout all the earth.

Then he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked, when he says for the Scripture says. First, he quotes an authority; second, he draws the conclusion, at therefore he has mercy on whom he wills. He says, therefore: it has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity. But neither is there injustice in rejecting the wicked from all eternity. For out of God's mouth the Scripture says: to this purpose have I raised you, or according to another rendition: I have preserved you for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. But our letter has: and on that account I stationed you, that I might show my strength in you, that my name may be related in the whole earth. The first point to notice here is what God does in regard to the rejected. He shows this when he says: to this purpose have I raised you, i.e., you had deserved to die for the evils you had done: those who do such things deserve to die (Rom 1:32), but I did not call you to die at once; rather I preserved you in life for this purpose, namely, of showing my power in you. This interpretation can also be obtained from the version which reads: have I raised you, i.e., although before me you deserved to be dead, I granted you life, as if I had raised you up. From this it appears that God works no injustice against the rejected, since they deserved to be destroyed at once for their crimes; rather, the fact that he preserves their life proceeds from his exceeding goodness: correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment; and not in your fury, lest you bring me to nothing (Jer 10:24). Another interpretation is this, have I raised you for sin, that you might become worse. This should not be understood as though God causes sin in man; rather, it should be understood in a permissive sense, namely, that from his just judgment he permits some to fall into sin on account of previous sins, as it says above: God gave them up to a base mind (Rom 1:28). But it seems to me that still more must be understood here, namely, that men are moved to good and to evil by God through an inward prompting. Hence, Augustine says in his book On Grace and Free Will that God works in men's hearts to incline their wills whithersoever he wills, either to good through his mercy or to evil according to their deserts. Thus, God is said very often to stir up men to do good, as it says in Daniel: the Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young boy (Dan 13:45). He is also said to raise up others to do evil, as in Isaiah: I will stir up the Medes against them and with their arrows they shall kill the children (Isa 13:1). However, he stirs them to good and to evil in different ways: for he inclines men's wills to good directly as the author of these good deeds; but he is said to incline or stir up men to evil as an occasional cause, namely, inasmuch as God puts before a person, either in him or outside of him something which of itself is conducive to good but which through his own malice he uses for evil: do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath (Rom 2:4–5) and God gave his place for penance: and he abused it unto pride (Job 24:23). Similarly, as far as in him lies, God enlightens a man inwardly to good, say a king to defend the rights of his kingdom or to punish rebels. But he abuses this good impulse according to the malice of his heart. This is plain in Isaiah where it is said of Assyria: against a godless nation I send him and against the people of my wrath I command him to take spoil and seize plunder (Isa 10:6), and further on: but he does not so intend, and his mind does not so think, but it is in his mind to destroy. That is the way it happened with Pharaoh, who, when he was prompted by God to defend his kingdom, abused this suggestion and practiced cruelty. Second, there is need to consider the purpose behind God's doing certain things and permitting certain things. For one must remember that God works in creatures to manifest himself, as it says in Romans: his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:20); hence these promptings are ordained to this manifestation both for those present, for the very purpose of showing my power in you, and Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians (Exod 14:3), and for those absent, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. Declare his glory among the gentiles (Ps 95:3). Thus, it is clear that in this matter there in no injustice in God, because he uses his creature according to its merits for his glory. And it can be interpreted in the same sense if it be said have I raised you, i.e., I have ordered your malice to my glory; for God orders the malice, but does not cause it.

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.