Romans 1

Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this very point: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ." And again, writing to the Romans about Israel, he says: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever." And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption;" plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son Of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,-humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God.

Against Heresies Book 3

Come, now, if he had not "wholly saddened" so many persons in the first Epistle; if he had "rebuked" none, had "terrified" none; if he had "smitten" the incestuous man alone; if, for his cause, he had sent none into panic, had struck (no) "inflated" one with consternation,-would it not be better for you to suspect, and more believing for you to argue, that rather some one far different had been in the same predicament at that time among the Corinthians; so that, rebuked, and terrified, and already wounded with mourning, he therefore-the moderate nature of his fault permitting it-subsequently received pardon, than that you should interpret that (pardon as granted) to an incestuous fornicator? For this you had been bound to read, even if not in an Epistle, yet impressed upon the very character of the apostle, by (his) modesty more clearly than by the instrumentality of a pen: not to steep, to wit, Paul, the "apostle of Christ," the "teacher of the nations in faith and verity," the "vessel of election," the founder of Churches, the censor of discipline, (in the guilt of) levity so great as that he should either have condemned rashly one whom he was presently to absolve, or else rashly absolved one whom he had not rashly condemned, albeit on the ground of that fornication which is the result of simple immodesty, not to say on the ground of incestuous nuptials and impious voluptuousness and parricidal lust,-(lust) which he had refused to compare even with (the lusts of) the nations, for fear it should be set down to the account of custom; (lust) on which he would sit in judgment though absent, for fear the culprit should "gain the time; " (lust) which he had condemned after calling to his aid even "the Lord's power," for fear the sentence should seem human.

On Modesty

The first question which occurs to us concerns the name Paul itself. Why is he, who in Acts was called Saul, now called Paul? In Holy Scripture we find that among the ancients, many names were altered, e.g., Abram was renamed Abraham, Sarai became Sarah, and Jacob became Israel. In the Gospels too, Simon was changed to Peter, and the sons of Zebedee became known as sons of thunder. But these things occurred by divine command, and we read nothing of the sort in the case of Paul. Because of this, some people have imagined that the apostle took the name of Paul, the proconsul of Cyprus, whom he converted to the Christian faith, in the same way that rulers are in the habit of adding the names of conquered peoples to their titles, e.g., Parthicus would indicate someone who conquered the Parthians, Gothicus a victor over the Goths, and so on. In the same way the apostle would have called himself Paul to indicate that he had conquered the proconsul Paul.We cannot exclude this reason completely, but given that no such custom can be found in Holy Scripture, we ought rather to seek a solution from the examples which we do have. And indeed we find in the Scriptures that some people have two or even three different names, e.g., Solomon is also called Jedidiah, Zedekiah is also called Mattaniah, Uzziah is also called Azariah, and there are many others in the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings who have double names. But even the Gospels do not abandon this custom, e.g., Matthew was called Levi … and Thaddeus sometimes appears as Lebbaeus. Obviously the Gospel writers did not get the names of the apostles wrong, but given that it was the custom of the Hebrews to have two or three names, they gave different names to one and the same man. It seems to us that it is in accordance with this custom that Paul appears to have a second name, and that as long as he was ministering to his own people he was called Saul, which was probably the name his parents gave him, but that when he was writing laws and commandments for the Greeks and other Gentiles, he was called Paul. Scripture makes it clear when it says: “Saul, who is also called Paul,” that the name Paul was not then being given to him for the first time but was already habitual. But why does Paul call himself a slave, when elsewhere he says: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of sonship, by which we cry Abba! Father!” … We may understand this as an expression of humility … and that would not be wrong. Nor is the reality of Paul’s freedom compromised by this in any way. As he himself says: “Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all.” … For he serves Christ not in the spirit of slavery but in the spirit of adoption, for Christ’s service is more noble than any freedom. “Called” is the name given to everyone who believes in Christ and is therefore a general term, although it is applied to each one according to what God has foreseen and chosen in him. He may be called to be an apostle or a prophet or a teacher; as free from a wife or as bound in marriage, and this is determined by the diversity of grace given to everyone, as it is written: “Many are called but few are chosen.” In Paul’s case, he was not called to be an apostle in the general sense, but he was also chosen according to the foreknowledge of God to be “set apart for the gospel of God,” as he says elsewhere: “God set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace.” Heretics wrongly claim that he was set apart from his mother’s womb on account of the goodness of his nature, just as from the opposite side of the fence we read in the Psalms of those “sinners who were separated from the womb” because of their evil nature. But we say that Paul was chosen neither by accident nor because of some natural difference, but he himself attributed the causes of his election to him who knows everything before it happens.… For God foresaw that Paul would labor more abundantly than anyone else in the gospel … and for that reason Jesus set him apart in his mother’s womb for the gospel. Had he been chosen by fate, as the heretics maintain, or by some inherently better nature, he would not have been afraid of being condemned if he failed to preach the gospel. God’s foreknowledge, by which those who will labor and succeed are known, comes first, and his predestination follows afterwards, so that foreknowledge cannot be regarded as the cause of predestination. With men, merits are weighed according to past actions, but with God they are weighed according to future behavior, and anyone who thinks that God cannot see our future just as easily as he can see our past is an unbeliever.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Some people argue quite pointlessly as to whether the participle called is meant to modify servant or apostle. It applies to both, since everyone is called, and called equally, both to faith and grace and to election and the apostolic order.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Paul was set apart and dedicated to evangelism, like the offerings which the law says were set apart for God and for the priests.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek CHURCH.28

Saul changed his name to Paul, and the change was permanent. Because Saul means restlessness or trial, when he came to faith in Christ he called himself Paul, i.e., rest, because our faith is peace. For whereas previously he had inflicted trials on the servants of God because of his desire to fulfill the law, later he himself endured trials on account of the hope which before he had denied because of his love of Judaism.In calling himself a “servant of Jesus Christ,” Paul shows that he has been delivered from the law, and he puts both names, Jesus and Christ, in order to signify the person of God and man, for in both he is Lord, as Peter the apostle testifies, saying: “He is the Lord of all.” And because he is Lord, he is also God, as David says: “For the Lord himself is God.” The heretics deny this. Marcion, it seems, denied Christ and his body out of hatred for the law, although he confessed Jesus. The Jews and Photinus denied that Jesus was God out of their zeal for the law. For whenever Scripture says either “Jesus” or “Christ,” it sometimes means the person of God and sometimes the person of the man, e.g.: “there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” “Called to be an apostle.” Because Paul acknowledged the Lord and confessed him he became the perfect servant and shows that he was promoted, saying that he was called to be an apostle, i.e., a messenger sent by the Lord to do his work. By this he shows that he had merit with God because he served Christ and not the law. “Set apart for the gospel of God.” The gospel of God is good news, by which sinners are called to forgiveness. For since as a Pharisee the apostle held a teaching post among the Jews, he now says that he has been set apart from the preaching of Judaism for the gospel of God, so that abandoning the law, he might preach Christ who justifies those who believe in him, which the law could not do. This does not go against the law but affirms it, since the law itself says that this will happen in the future, in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “There will come from Zion one who will break and remove the captivity of Jacob, and this will be a testimony of me, when I shall take away their sins.”

Commentary on Paul’s EPISTLES.26

Moses having written five books, has nowhere put his own name to them, neither have they who after him put together the history of events after him, no nor yet has Matthew, nor John, nor Mark, nor Luke; but the blessed Paul everywhere in his Epistles sets his own name. Now why was this? Because they were writing to people, who were present, and it had been superfluous to show themselves when they were present. But this man sent his writings from afar and in the form of a letter, for which cause also the addition of the name was necessary. But if in the Epistle to the Hebrews he does not do the same, this too is after his own wise judgment. For since they felt prejudiced against him, lest on hearing the name at the outstart, they should stop up all admission to his discourse, he subtly won their attention by concealing the name.

Homily on Romans 1

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ." Why did God change his name, and call him Paul who was Saul? It was, that he might not even in this respect come short of the Apostles, but that that preëminence which the chief of the Disciples had, he might also acquire; and have whereon to ground a closer union with them. And he calls himself, the servant of Christ, yet not merely this; for there be many sorts of servitude. One owing to the Creation, according to which it says, "for all are Thy servants"; and according to which it says, "Nebuchadnezzar, My servant", for the work is the servant of Him which made it. Another kind is that from the faith, of which it saith, "But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from a pure heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you: being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." Another is that from civil subjection, after which it saith, "Moses my servant is dead"; and indeed all the Jews were servants, but Moses in a special way as shining most brightly in the community. Since then, in all the forms of the marvellous servitude, Paul was a servant, this he puts in the room of the greatest title of dignity, saying, "a servant of Jesus Christ." And the Names appertaining to the dispensation he sets forth, going on upwards from the lowest. For with the Name Jesus, did the Angel come from Heaven when He was conceived of the Virgin, and Christ He is called from being anointed, which also itself belonged to the flesh. And with what oil, it may be asked, was He anointed? It was not with oil that He was anointed, but with the Spirit. And Scripture has instances of calling such "Christs": inasmuch as the Spirit is the chief point in the unction, and that for which the oil is used. And where does it call those "Christs" who are not anointed with oil? "Touch not," it says, "Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm", but at that time the institution of anointing with oil did not yet even exist.

Homily on Romans 1

"Called an Apostle." He styles himself "called" in all his Epistles, so showing his own candor, and that it was not of his own seeking that he found, but that when called he came near and obeyed. And the faithful, he styles, "called to be saints," but while they had been called so far as to be believers, he had besides a different thing committed to his hands, namely, the Apostleship, a thing full of countless blessings, and at once greater than and comprehensive of, all the gifts.

And what more need one say of it, than that whatsoever Christ was doing when present, this he committed to their hands when He departed. Which also Paul cries aloud, speaking thereof and magnifying the dignity of the Apostles' office; "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech by us;" i. e. in Christ's stead. "Separated to the Gospel of God." For as in a house, each one is set apart for divers works; thus also in the Church, there be divers distributions of ministrations. And herein he seems to me to hint, that he was not appointed by lot only, but that of old and from the first he was ordained to this office; which also Jeremy saith, that God spake concerning himself, "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." For in that he was writing to a vainglorious city, and one every way puffed up, he therefore uses every mode of showing that his election was of God. For he Himself called him, and Himself separated him. And he does this, that he may make the Epistle deserve credit, and meet an easy reception. "To the Gospel of God." Not Matthew then alone is an Evangelist, nor Mark, as neither was this man alone an Apostle, but they also; even if he be said preëminently to be this, and they that. And he calleth it the Gospel, not for those good things only which have been brought to pass, but also for those which are to come. And how comes he to say, that the Gospel "of God" is preached by himself? for he says, "separated to the Gospel of God"-for the Father was manifest, even before the Gospels. Yet even if He were manifest, it was to the Jews only, and not even to all of these as were fitting. For neither did they know Him to be a Father, and many things did they conceive unworthily of Him. Wherefore also Christ saith, "The true worshippers" shall come, and that "the Father seeketh such to worship Him." But it was afterwards that He Himself with the Son was unveiled to the whole world, which Christ also spake of beforehand, and said, "that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou has sent." But he calls it the "Gospel" of God, to cheer the hearer at the outstart. For he came not with tidings to make the countenance sad, as did the prophets with their accusations, and charges, and reproofs, but with glad tidings, even the "Gospel of God;" countless treasures of abiding and unchangeable blessings.

Homily on Romans 1

Do we wonder why he writes Paul, given that he was called Saul before? Doubtless he did this following the habit of the saints. When they advanced in virtue they were addressed with a different name, so that they might be new people even in name, e.g., Abraham, Sarah and Cephas. … Paul earned the office of an apostle by faithful and matchless service. He was set apart in Acts 13:2. Gospel … means “good news”, i.e., of Christ’s birth, suffering, resurrection and ascension into heaven.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul here preaches the divinity of Christ to a world which was ignorant of it. Many people saw the Lord, and others believed in him without seeing, but Paul was called from heaven: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He was more highly favored than the other apostles, for the Lord called Peter and James and John and made them his disciples; he did not immediately make or call them apostles. But he made Paul an apostle as soon as he called him. Thus the gospel is preached according to the plan of God.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

All things are servants of Christ, and he is Lord of all. Therefore Paul calls himself a servant first of all, thereby encouraging the rest to do likewise. He also recalls the unique lordship of the Son but not in such a way as to deny the lordship of the Father, which is confessed by everybody. In saying that he was set apart, he showed that he was not only called but also chosen from among many as useful for the preaching of the gospel.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

By these two words, called and set apart, Paul distinguishes between the church, which is acceptable to God, and the synagogue, whose glory has faded away. The church (i.e., ecclesia) is so called because it “calls forth”: the synagogue, because it “gathers together.”

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 2.1-3, 5

Civil governors and military commanders put their titles at the beginning of their letters in order to boast and show off. But St. Paul says that he was born out of due time, that he is the chief of sinners and that he is unworthy of his apostleship. Nevertheless, when writing his letters, he starts with the words imposed on him by grace, for the benefit of those who receive them. For when the recipients realized the importance of the person who was writing to them, they would read the letter with greater earnestness and attention.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Neither Moses, nor many after him, not even the evangelists, placed their names before their writings, but the Apostle Paul places his name before each of his epistles: this is because they wrote for those who lived together with them, while he sent his writings from afar and by custom fulfilled the rule of the distinctive character of epistles. Only in the Epistle to the Hebrews does he not do this; for they hated him: therefore, lest upon hearing his name at once they should cease to listen to him, he conceals his name at the beginning. And why was he renamed from Saul to Paul? So that in this too he would not be less than the chief of the apostles, who was called Cephas, which means rock (Peter) (John 1:42), or the sons of Zebedee, who were named Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder (Mark 3:17).

Slavery has many kinds. There is slavery by creation, of which it is said: (Ps. 118:91). There is also slavery through faith, of which it is said: "you became obedient to that form of teaching to which you were delivered" (Rom. 6:17). Finally, there is slavery by way of life: in this respect Moses was called a servant of God (Josh. 1:2). Paul is a "servant" in all these kinds.

He presents the names of the Lord from the Incarnation, ascending from below upward: for the names "Jesus" and "Christ," that is, the Anointed One, are names given after the Incarnation. He was anointed not with oil at all, but with the Holy Spirit, which is certainly more precious than oil. And that anointing can occur even without oil, listen: "Touch not Mine anointed" (Ps. 104:15), which saying must be referred to those who lived before the Law, when there was not even such a thing as anointing with oil.

The word "called" signifies humility; for by it the Apostle shows that he did not himself seek and find, but was called.

The Apostle used the word "Apostle" to distinguish himself from the other called ones. For all the faithful are called; but they were called only to believe, whereas to me, he says, the apostleship was also entrusted, which was entrusted to Christ as well, when He was sent by the Father.

"Set apart unto the gospel of God" — that is, chosen for the ministry of the Gospel. Otherwise: "chosen" instead of "predestined" for this, just as God says to Jeremiah: "before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you" (Jer. 1:5). And Paul himself says in one place: "when it pleased God, who chose me from my mother's womb" (Gal. 1:15). Furthermore, it is not without reason that he says: "called and chosen for the Gospel." Since his discourse was addressed to the vainglorious, he impresses upon them that he is worthy of trust, as one sent from above. And he calls the Gospel itself so not only on account of blessings already accomplished, but also on account of future ones, and by the very name of the Gospel he immediately comforts the listener, for the Gospel contains nothing sorrowful, such as the prophecies of the prophets, but treasures of countless blessings. And this Gospel is the Gospel of God, that is, of the Father, both because it was given by Him and because it makes Him known, for although He was known even in the Old Testament, it was only to the Jews, and even to them He was not known as Father, but later, through the Gospel, He together with the Son was revealed to the whole world.

Commentary on Romans

This letter is divided into two parts, namely, the greeting and the body of the letter, which begins at first, I give thanks (Rom 1:8). In the first part three things are done. First, the person sending the greeting is described; second, the persons greeted, at to all who are at Rome (Rom 1:7); third, the blessings invoked, at grace to you (Rom 1:7). Concerning the first, he does two things. First, the person of the author is described; second, his office is commended, at which he had promised before (Rom 1:2).

The person writing is described by four things. First, by his name, Paul, concerning which one should consider three things. First, its accuracy; for this name, as it is spelled here, cannot be Hebrew because Hebrew does not have the letter P in its alphabet; but it can be Greek and Latin. Still, if it be taken as some letter close to P, it can be Hebrew.

Second, one should consider its meaning. Considered as Hebrew, it means 'wonderful' or 'chosen'; taken as Greek, it means 'quiet'; taken as Latin, it means 'small.' And these meanings suit him. For he was chosen as regards grace; hence he is a chosen vessel of mine (Acts 9:15). He was wonderful in his work: a marvelous vessel, the work of the Most High (Sir 43:2). He was quiet in contemplation: when I enter my house, I shall find rest with her (Wis 8:16). He was small by humility: I am the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9).

Third, one should consider when that name was conferred on the Apostle, since he had formerly been called Saul, as is found in Acts 9. There are three opinions about this. Jerome says that whereas he had formerly been called Saul, later he wished to be called Paul on account of something notable he had done, namely that he converted Sergius Paulus, a proconsul (Acts 13:7), just as Scipio was called Africanus because he had conquered Africa. Others say that this name was conferred on account of the growth in virtue, which is signified by this name, as was said. For names are conferred by God on certain men at the very beginning of their lives to indicate the grace they receive at the beginning, as in the case of John the Baptist (Luke 1:13). In other cases the names of persons are changed to indicate their growth in virtue, as Chrysostom says. This is clear in the cases of Abraham (Gen 17) and Peter (Matt 16). But others have a better explanation, namely, that Paul always went by two names. For it was customary among the Jews, along with their Hebrew name, to take a name from among the people they served; thus, those who served the Greeks took Greek names, as is clear in the cases of Jason and Menelaus (2 Macc 4).

Now the name Paul was held in esteem among the Romans from the earliest times; accordingly, he was called Saul among the Hebrews and Paul among the Romans, although he does not seem to have used the latter until he began to preach to the gentiles. Hence, it is said: but Saul, who is also called Paul (Acts 13:9). This third opinion is the one Augustine favors.

Second, the writer's person is described by his station, when he says, a servant of Christ. Now the state of servitude seems a lowly one, if it be considered absolutely; this is why it is imposed with a curse as a punishment for sin: cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Gen 9:25). But it is made commendable by reason of what is added, namely, of Jesus Christ. For Jesus means savior: he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21); Christ means anointed: therefore God, your God, has anointed you (Ps 45:7). This indicates Christ's dignity both in regard to his holiness, since priests were anointed, as is clear from Exodus 29; and in regard to his power, since kings, too, were anointed, as is clear in the cases of David and Solomon; and in regard to his knowledge, since prophets were also anointed, as in the case of Elisha. Furthermore, it is praiseworthy for a person to be subjected to his own well-being and to the spiritual anointing of grace, because a thing is perfect to the extent that it is subjected to its perfection, as the body to the soul and air to light: O Lord, I am your servant (Ps 116:16).

This seems to conflict with John: no longer do I call you servants, but friends (John 15:15). But one should say that there are two kinds of servitude: one is the servitude of fear, which does not befit saints: you have not received the spirit of slavery again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8:15); the other is that of humility and love, which does befit saints: say: we are unworthy servants (Luke 17:10). For while a free man is one who exists for his own sake, a servant is one who exists for the sake of another, as moving by reason of another's moving him; if then a person acts for the sake of another as though moved by him, the service is one of fear, which forces a man to act in opposition to his own will. But if he acts for the sake of another as an end, then it is the servitude of love; because a friend serves and does good to his friend for the friend's own sake, as the Philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics.

Third, the person writing is described by his dignity when it says, called to be an apostle. The apostolic dignity is the foremost in the Church, in accord with 1 Corinthians: God has appointed in the Church, first, apostles (1 Cor 12:28). For apostle means 'sent': as the Father has sent me, even so I send you (John 20:21), i.e., out of the same love and with the same authority. Moreover, he says, called to be an apostle, to indicate a gift: one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God as Aaron was (Heb 5:4); or to emphasize excellence, so that just as Rome is antonomastically called 'the city,' so Paul is called the apostle: I worked harder than any of them (1 Cor 15:10); or to show his humility, as though to say: I do not dare to call myself an apostle, but men call me that: I am unfit to be called an apostle (1 Cor 15:9).

Fourth, the person writing is described by his office when it says, separated unto the Gospel of God. Separated, I say, from unbelievers by his conversion: but when he who had set me apart from the womb of my mother, i.e., of the synagogue (Gal 1:15); or separated from other disciples by his being chosen: set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:2). Gospel means good news. For it announces the news of man's union with God, which is man's good: it is good for me to cleave to God (Ps 73:28).

Indeed, a threefold union of man with God is announced in the Gospel. The first is by the grace of union: the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). The second is by the grace of adoption, as implied in the Psalm: I say: you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you (Ps 82:6). The third is by the glory of attainment: this is eternal life, that they know you (John 17:3); how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings (Isa 52:7). These good tidings were not from men, but from God: what I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you (Isa 21:10). Hence he says, unto the Gospel of God.

Commentary on Romans

You the reader must decide whether this is to be understood simply of the gospel which was promised by God through the prophetic Scriptures or whether this is said in order to distinguish it from another gospel, which John calls “eternal” in the book of Revelation. This gospel will be revealed when the shadow passes and the truth comes, when death will be swallowed up and eternity restored. It seems that those eternal years of which the prophet spoke also belong to this eternal gospel: “I had the eternal years in mind.”48It must be understood that what was predicted by the prophets concerning Christ was also predicted concerning the gospel, although the Evangelist Mark seems to make a distinction between Christ and the gospel when he says: “Whoever has left father or mother … for my sake or for the gospel.” But if promises referring specifically to the gospel are what is required, you will find an abundance of them in the prophets, to wit: “The Lord will give his word with great power to those who preach the good news,” and: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.”

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

“Which he had promised.” In order to prove that the hope of faith was fulfilled and completed in Christ, Paul says that Christ’s gospel was already promised by God beforehand, so that on the basis of the promise Paul could teach that Christ was the perfect author of [eternal] life.“Through his prophets.” In order to show even more clearly that the coming of Christ was a saving event, Paul also indicated the people through whom God gave his promise, so that it might be seen from them just how true and magnificent the promise is. For nobody uses great forerunners to announce some minor thing. “In the holy scriptures.” Paul added this on top of his argument in order to give greater confidence to believers and show his approval of the law. The Scriptures are holy because they condemn sins and because in them is contained the covenant of the one God and the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of mankind, by the evidence of numerous signs.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"Which He promised afore by His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures."

For the Lord, saith he, "shall give the word to them that proclaim glad tidings with great power"; and again, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace." See here both the name of the Gospel expressly and the temper of it, laid down in the Old Testament. For, we do not proclaim it by words only, he means, but also by acts done; since neither was it human, but both divine and unspeakable, and transcending all nature. Now since they have laid against it the charge of novelty also, He shows it to be older than the Greeks, and described aforetime in the Prophets. And if He gave it not from the beginning because of those that were unwilling to receive it, still, they that were willing did hear it. "Your father Abraham," He says, "rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad." How then comes He to say, Many prophets desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them? He means not so, as ye see and hear, the Flesh itself, and the very miracles before your eyes. But let me beg you to look and see what a very long time ago these things were foretold. For when God is about to do openly some great things, He announces them of a long time before, to practise men's hearing for the reception of them when they come.

"In the Holy Scriptures." Because the Prophets not only spake, but also writ what they spake; nor did they write only, but also shadowed them forth by actions, as Abraham when he led up Isaac, and Moses when he lifted up the Serpent, and when he spread out his hands against Amalek, and when he offered the Paschal Lamb.

Homily on Romans 1

Paul preaches no other Christ than the Christ whose gospel the prophets promised would go forth from Jerusalem. He declares that they are prophets of God and that the Scriptures which prophesied about Christ are holy. This entire passage contradicts the Manichaeans, for it says that the gospel was promised beforehand through God’s prophets and in the Holy Scriptures and that according to the flesh Christ came from the lineage of David, i.e., from the Virgin Mary, just as Isaiah had foretold.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul says “his prophets” because there are also prophets of idols, and by the word his he distinguishes one type of prophet from another and one gospel from another. For there are many gospels, but they are moral and temporary, whereas that of Christ proclaims in the holy Scriptures the enjoyment of eternal blessedness. These prophets are his because they are not of another god but of the Father of Christ.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

The prophets arose from the Jewish people, and Paul testifies that the gospel, in which believers are justified by faith, had been promised earlier through them.… For there are Gentile prophets as well, in whom also are found some things which they heard of Christ and prophesied. This sort of thing is even said about the Sibyl [Virgil, Eclogues 4.4] … but the writings of the Gentiles, so very full of superstitious idolatry, ought not to be considered holy just because they say something about Christ.

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 3

The Old Testament is full of predictions of Christ’s coming. Paul did not call them “holy” by accident but, first of all, in order to teach that he recognized that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, and secondly, in order to exclude all other writings. For only the divinely inspired Scriptures are of any use. Indeed, Paul says that they are the image of the promise which was to come.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Since the preaching was reviled as an innovation, he shows that it is more ancient than paganism and was previously described by the prophets; even the word "gospel" is found in David, who says: "The Lord gives the word; the women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host" (Ps. 68:11), and in Isaiah: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace" (Isa. 52:7).

The prophets not only spoke, but also wrote and depicted things through actions, for example: Abraham through Isaac, Moses through the serpent, the lifting up of hands, and the slaying of the lamb. For when God was about to prepare something great, He foretells it long beforehand. Therefore, when He says that many prophets desired to see what you see, and did not see it (Matt. 13:17), He expresses by this that they did not see His very flesh, and therefore did not see the signs being performed before their eyes.

Commentary on Romans

The person of the writer described, now the task committed to him is commended, namely, the Gospel, which has already been commended from two viewpoints in the preceding verse. One of these concerns the usefulness it has due to its content, which is signified by its very name, Gospel, which implies that in it good things are announced. The other is based on the authority it has on the side of its author, which is set out when it says, of God (Rom 1:1). Now the Apostle pursues these two commendations further: first, on the part of the author; second, on the part of its content, at concerning his Son.

From the first viewpoint the Gospel is commended in four ways: First, by its antiquity. This was required against the pagans, who belittled the Gospel as something suddenly appearing after all the preceding centuries. To counter this he says, which he had promised before, because, although it began to be preached at a certain point in time, it had been foretold previously in a divine way: before they came to pass, I announced them to you (Isa 48:5). Second, from its reliability, which is indicated when he says, he had promised, because the promise was made beforehand by one who does not lie: we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled (Acts 13:32). Third, from the dignity of its ministers or witnesses, when he says, through his prophets, to whom had been revealed the things fulfilled concerning the incarnate Word: the Lord will not make a word, namely, make it be incarnate, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7); to him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43).

It is significant that he says, his prophets, for some prophets spoke by a human spirit: they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord (Jer 23:16). Hence, he says to Titus: one of themselves spoke, a prophet of their own (Titus 1:12). There are even prophets of demons who are inspired by an unclean spirit, such as the prophets whom Elijah slew (1 Kgs 18:40). But those are called God's prophets who are inspired by the divine Spirit: I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy (Joel 2:28).

Fourth, from the way it was delivered, because these promises were not merely spoken but recorded in writing. Hence he says, in the Scriptures: write the vision; make it plain upon tablets (Hab 2:2). For it was the custom to record only important matters worthy of remembrance and of being handed down to later generations. Consequently, as Augustine says in City of God XVIII, the prophecies about Christ made by Isaiah and Hosea began to be written when Rome was being founded, under whose rule Christ would be born and his faith preached to the gentiles: you search the Scriptures because you think to have eternal life by them (John 5:39).

He adds holy to distinguish these writings from those of the gentiles. They are called holy, first, because, as it is written: men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet 1:21); all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). Second, because they contain holy things: give thanks to his holy name (Ps 97:12). Third, because they make holy: make them holy in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17). Hence, it is said: we have as encouragement the holy books which are in our hands (1 Macc 12:9).

Commentary on Romans

I Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded, in very truth, with respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, "the first-born of every creature," God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. From whom we also derive our being, from His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for the ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

I glorify God … that you are fully persuaded that our Lord was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh and the Son of God according to the will and power of God.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

This, therefore, the Word of God was made, recapitulating in Himself His own handiwork; and on this account does He confess Himself the Son of man, and blesses "the meek, because they shall inherit the earth." The Apostle Paul, moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, declares plainly, "God sent His Son, made of a woman." And again, in that to the Romans, he says, "Concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."

Against Heresies Book 3

Well, I on my side will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father, was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift, had been through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original.

Against Marcion Book 4

With a nature issuing from such fountal sources, and an order gradually descending to the birth of Christ, what else have we here described than the very flesh of Abraham and of David conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin, and at last introducing Christ,-nay, producing Christ Himself of the virgin? Then, again, there is Paul, who was at once both a disciple, and a master, and a witness of the selfsame Gospel; as an apostle of the same Christ, also, he affirms that Christ "was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh," -which, therefore, was His own likewise.

On the Flesh of Christ

Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, "who was made of the seed of David; " in which words He will be Man and Son of Man.

Against Praxeas

Without any doubt, he was made that which he had not previously been according to the flesh. But according to the Spirit he existed beforehand, and there was never a time when he did not exist.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

“Concerning his Son.” It was fitting, since God promised his own Son to the world, that he should promise him through great men, so that from them it might be known how very powerful the one who was being preached was and so that he might include his future coming in the Holy Scriptures. And what is preached by the Holy Scriptures cannot be shown to be false.“Who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh.” He who was the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit (that is, according to God, because God is Spirit and without any doubt he is holy), is said to have been made the Son of God according to the flesh by Mary, as it is written: “The Word became flesh.” Christ Jesus is both Son of God and Son of Man. As he is truly God, so also he is truly man. For he would not be truly man if he were not of flesh and soul. Otherwise he would be incomplete. For although he was the Son of God in eternity, he was not known by the creation until, when God wanted him to be revealed for the salvation of mankind, he made him visible and corporeal, because God wanted him to be known through his power to cleanse humans from their sins by overcoming death in the flesh. Therefore he was made of the seed of David. As he was born a king from God before the beginning of time, so also he would acquire birth from a king according to the flesh, being made from a virgin by the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e., born. Thus by the reverence reserved for him because of this fact, he who by his birth was distinguished from the law of nature would be recognized as being more than a man. This had been predicted by Isaiah the prophet: “Behold a virgin will conceive in her womb.” Hence when the newborn child appeared to be worthy of honor, a certain providence of God was discerned concerning a future visitation of the human race.

Commentary on Paul’s EPISTLES.71

"Concerning His Son which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh."

What dost thou, O Paul, that after lifting up our souls so, and elevating them, and causing great and unutterable things to pass show before them, and speaking of the Gospel, and that too the Gospel of God, and bringing in the chorus of the Prophets, and showing the whole of them heralding forth many years before those things which were to come: why dost thou again bring us down to David? Art thou conversing, oh tell me, of some man, and giving him Jesse's son for a father? And wherein are these things worthy of what thou hast just spoken of? Yea, they are fully worthy. For our discourse is not, saith he, of any bare man. Such was my reason for adding, "according to the flesh;" as hinting that there is also a Generation of the Same after the Spirit. And why did he begin from that and not from this the higher? It is because that was what Matthew, and Luke, and Mark, began from. For he who would lead men by the hand to Heaven, must needs lead them upwards from below. So too was the actual dispensation ordered. First, that is, they saw Him a man upon earth, and then they understood Him to be God. In the same direction then, as He Himself had framed His teaching, did His disciple also shape out the way which leadeth thither. Therefore the generation according to the flesh is in his language placed first in order, not because it was first, but because he was for leading the hearer from this up to that.

Homily on Romans 1

Many are sons by grace, but Christ is a son by nature.… By adding “according to the flesh” Paul has countered both Photinus and Arius. For if it is true that Christ was made according to the flesh, he most certainly was not made according to the substance of the Word.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Here he clearly shows two births; for through the words "concerning His Son," that is, the Son of God, he indicates the birth from above, and through the expression "of the seed of David" – the birth from below. And by the addition "according to the flesh," he showed that the birth according to the Spirit also belongs to Him. Therefore the Gospel is not about a mere man, for it is about the Son of God, nor about God alone, for it is about the One born of the seed of David according to the flesh, so that One and the Same is both, that is, both Son of God and Son of David. Therefore let Nestorius be ashamed at last. The Apostle also mentions His birth according to the flesh, as do the three Evangelists, in order to lead the listeners from it to the higher birth. So too the Lord Himself was first seen as a man, and then recognized as God.

Commentary on Romans

Second, he continues the commendation on the part of the good things announced in the Gospel and which make up the content of the Gospel, which is Christ, whom he commends in three ways: first, from his origin; second, from his dignity or virtue, at who was predestined (Rom 1:4); third, from his liberality, at through whom we have received (Rom 1:5).

He describes the origin of Christ in two ways. First he describes his eternal origin when he says, concerning his Son. In this he reveals the excellence of the Gospel, for the mystery of the eternal generation had been previously hidden; hence Solomon asks: what is his name and the name of his son, if you know? (Prov 30:4). But it has been revealed in the Gospel on the testimony of the Father: this is my beloved Son (Matt 3:17). Indeed, the Son of God is deservedly called the subject matter of the Holy Scriptures, which reveal the divine wisdom, as Deuteronomy declares: this will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of all the peoples (Deut 4:6). For the Son is said to be the Word and wisdom begotten: Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24).

But men have erred in three ways about this sonship. For some said that he has an adoptive sonship; for example, Photinus taught that Christ derived his origin from the Virgin Mary as a mere man, who by the merits of his life reached such an exalted state that he could be called a Son of God above all other saints. But if this were true, Christ would not be described as lowering himself to manhood but as rising up to the Godhead, whereas it is said: I have come down from heaven (John 6:38).

Others taught that this sonship was a sonship in name only, as Sabellius, who said that the Father himself became incarnate and for that reason took the name of Son, such that the person would be the same and the names alone different. But if this were true, the Son would not be described as sent by the Father; which is false, since he himself said that he came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent him (John 6:38).

Others, such as Arius, taught that this sonship was a created one, so that the Son of God would be the most perfect creature, albeit produced from nothing after previously not existing. But if this were true, all things would not have been made through him, the contrary of which is stated in John (John 1:3). For the one through whom all things were made cannot himself have been made.

These three opinions are excluded by the significantly added word, his, i.e., his very own and natural. For Hilary says: this true and personal Son is a Son by origin and not by adoption, in truth and not in name only, by birth and not by creation; for he comes forth from the Father as a word from the heart. Such a word belongs to the same nature, especially in God, in whom nothing inheres accidentally. Hence he himself says, I and the Father are one (John 10:30). The fact that he says 'one' frees you from Arius; that he says 'we are' frees you from Sabellius, as Augustine says.

Second, he touches on the temporal origin when he says, who was made. Here right away the three aforementioned errors seem to find a defense in the fact that it says, who was made to him. For they do not admit an eternal Son but one that was made. But the words that follow destroy their goal.

For when he says, who was made to him, the error of Sabellius is excluded. For he could not be made a Son for the Father if he were the same person as the Father; rather, through the Incarnation he will be the Son of the Virgin. By saying of the seed of David, he destroys Photinus's goal. For if he were made the Son of God by adoption, he would not be described as made from the seed of David but from the Spirit, who is the Spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8:15), and from the seed of God (1 John 3:9). The words, according to the flesh, destroy Arius's opinion that he was created both according to the flesh and the divine nature.

We should also recall that men have erred in a number of ways in regard to the mystery of the Incarnation itself. For Nestorius taught that the union of the Word with human nature consisted solely in an indwelling, in the sense that the Son of God dwelt in that man more fully than in others. But it is obvious that the substance of the dweller and that of the dwelling are distinct, for example, a man and a house. Accordingly, he taught that the person or hypostasis of the Word was distinct from that of the man, so that the Son of God would be one person and the Son of man another.

This is shown to be false by the fact that the Apostle in Philippians calls this sort of union an emptying of himself (Phil 2:7). But since the Father and the Holy Spirit dwell in men, as John declares: we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23), it follows that they too would be emptying themselves, which is absurd. This opinion, therefore, is excluded when the Apostle says, concerning his Son who, namely, the Son of God, was made according to the flesh, i.e., having his flesh of the seed of David. He would not have spoken in this manner if the union were a mere indwelling. Furthermore, in regard to others in whom the Word dwells, it is never said that the Word was made this or that person, but that it was made to Jeremiah or Isaiah. Therefore, since the Apostle, after saying concerning his Son, added, who was made to him of the seed of David, the above error is clearly excluded.

Others again, although they do not suppose two persons in Christ, do suppose two hypostases or supposita. But this amounts to the same thing, because a person is nothing other than a hypostasis or suppositum of a rational nature. Therefore, since there is only one hypostasis and suppositum in Christ, which is the suppositum or hypostasis of the eternal Word, that hypostasis cannot be said to have become the Son of God, because it never began to be the Son of God. Therefore, it is not altogether correct to say that man was made God or the Son of God. Yet if this is found to be taught by any teacher, it should be interpreted thus: it was made to be that man be God. Accordingly, it is correct to say that the Son of God was made man because he was not always man. Therefore, what is written here must be understood so that the who refers to the subject, the sense being that this Son of God was made of the seed of David, and not to the predicate, because then the sense would be that someone existing of the seed of David became the son of God, which is neither true nor correct, as has been said.

Again, there were others who taught that the union was made by the conversion of the Word into flesh, as it is said that air is made to become fire. Hence Eutyches said that before the Incarnation there were two natures, but after the Incarnation only one. But this is clearly false because, since God is immutable—I, the Lord, do not change (Mal 3:6)—he cannot be changed into anything else.

Hence, when it is said, was made, this should not be understood as a change but as a union without any divine change. For something can be newly said of something in a relative sense without the thing itself being changed; thus, a person remaining in one place comes newly to be on the right of something, which was moved from his right to his left. This is the way God is said to be Lord or Creator from a certain time, namely, by reason of a change affecting the creature. In the same way he is said to have been made something anew: Lord, you have become our refuge (Ps 90:1). Therefore, since union is a relation, it is through a change in the creature that God is newly said to have been made man, i.e., united in person to a human nature.

Finally, there were others, namely Arius and Apollinaris, who said that Christ had no soul, but that the Word was there in place of the soul. But this is refuted by John: no one takes my soul (John 10:18). The words, according to the flesh, do not exclude a soul from Christ; rather, flesh stands for the entire man, as in Isaiah: all flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (Isa 40:5).

It may be asked, since we believe that Christ was born of the Virgin, why the Apostle says he was made from a woman. The answer is this: that is born which is produced in the natural order, as fruit from a tree or children from parents; that which is produced from the will of one acting, not according to the order of nature, as a house by a carpenter, cannot be said to be born but made. Therefore, because Christ proceeded from the Virgin in the natural order in a certain respect, namely, that he was conceived from a woman and remained in her womb for a space of nine months, it is true to say that he was born. But because he proceeded in a certain respect not in the natural order but solely from divine power without male seed, he is said to have been made. Thus, Eve is described as made, not born, from Adam; Isaac was born, not made, from Abraham.

Another question is why he is said to have descended of the seed of David in particular and not of the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises about Christ had been made: now the promises were made to Abraham (Gal 3:16). The answer is that this was done to give hope of pardon to sinners, for David was a sinner from whose seed Christ was born, while Abraham was a just man, and also to commend Christ's royal dignity to the Romans, who ruled the nations.

The Apostle's words also exclude three errors of the Manicheans. First, their assertion that the God of the Old Testament and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are not the same. This is excluded when the Apostle says, which God had promised before, through his prophets, in the holy Scriptures, i.e., of the Old Testament, concerning his Son. Second, their condemnation of the Old Testament writings, which the Apostle here calls holy. For no other writings were holy before the Gospel except those. Third, their claim that Christ had an imaginary body. This is excluded when the Apostle says that Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, to him, i.e., to the glory of the Father: I seek not my glory, but his who sent me (John 8:50).

Commentary on Romans

Let no one think that we are reading more into this text than the meaning itself permits. For although in Latin translations one normally finds the word predestined here, the true reading is designated and not predestined. For designated applies to someone who already exists, whereas predestined is only applicable to someone who does not yet exist, like those of whom the apostle said: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined.” … Those who do not yet exist may be foreknown and predestined, but he who is and who always exists is not predestined but designated. These things are said by us concerning those who speak blasphemously about the only begotten Son of God and ignoring the difference between designated and predestined think that Christ is to be numbered among those who were predestined before they existed. But he was never predestined to be the Son, because he always was and is the Son, just as the Father has always been the Father.… The apostle makes an essential distinction when he says that “from the seed of David according to the flesh” Christ was made, but as “the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness” he is designated.And when he says “Son of God” it is not without reason that he adds “in power,” indicating by this that in substance he is the Son according to the Spirit of holiness. For Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” … But we want to know what to make of the soul of Jesus, if what is born of the seed of David is according to the flesh and what is designated in power is according to the Spirit of holiness the Son of God and in the substance of God. The soul, however, is not mentioned either with the flesh, with the Spirit of holiness or with the substance of God’s power, although the Savior himself speaks of it elsewhere: “My soul is very sorrowful, even unto death” and: “Now is my soul troubled.” Here he means the soul which he laid aside of his own free will, which went down to hell and of which it is said: “Thou dost not leave my soul in hell.” It is certain that this soul was not born of the seed of David, for he says that what was born of the seed of David was according to the flesh. The soul cannot be included with the things which are according to the flesh, nor in that which is designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness. I think that the apostle is here following his usual custom, knowing that the soul is always midway between the spirit and the flesh. Either it joins itself to the flesh and is made one with the flesh or it associates itself with the spirit and is made one with the spirit. From this it may be concluded that when the soul is united with the flesh, men become carnal, and that when it is united with the spirit, men become spiritual. For this reason, Paul does not mention the soul independently but only as flesh or spirit. For he knows that the soul must necessarily attach itself to one or other of these, as it does in those to whom he says: “But you are in the flesh and not in the spirit,” and: “Whoever joins himself to a harlot is one body with her,” calling the harlot here “flesh” or “body,” but “whoever joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him.”80 Some people come to us raising the most serious problems as to how Christ can be descended from the seed of David when it is clear that he was not born from Joseph, in whom the line of David descends from one generation to the other. Unpleasant as it is to have to argue according to the literal sense of the text, some of our people answer by saying that Mary was already engaged to Joseph and that before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. According to the law, she was therefore already united to Joseph’s tribe and family. … Whether you think this line of argument is valid is up to you, dear reader, to decide! In our opinion, these things must be understood according to the spiritual or allegorical sense, according to which there is no reason why Joseph should not be called the father of Christ, even though he was not his father. For in the generations recorded by Matthew it is stated that Jehoshaphat begat Joram and Joram begat Uzziah, but in 2 Kings it is said that Jehoshaphat begat Ahaziah and Ahaziah begat Joash and Joash begat Amaziah, and Amaziah begat Azariah, who was also called Uzziah. … Matthew therefore left three generations out! The explanation for this is surely not to be sought on the historical level but in conjunction with the spiritual understanding.… It is therefore enough for us to say, in answer to our opponents, that just as Jesus is called the son of Joseph even though he did not descend from him, and Uzziah is called the son of Joram even though Joram was not his father, so can we also reckon that Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. What we accept as reason and proof in the case of Joram and Joseph must, we think, be allowed to stand in the case of David as well. How it is that he who is said to have been made from the seed of David according to the flesh should be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead is not hard to understand for anyone who has read that it is written: “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.” Now the end of Christ’s sufferings is the resurrection, and after the resurrection “he will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.” And again: “Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” Thus everything which is in Christ is now the Son of God. How this all relates to him who is designated Son of God in power is hard for us to understand unless we accept that, because of the indissoluble union of the Word and the flesh, everything which pertains to the flesh may be attributed to the Word also, and everything which pertains to the Word may be attributed to the flesh also. For we often find Jesus referred to in either nature as both Christ and Lord.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

When Paul speaks about the Son of God he is pointing out that God is Father, and by adding the Spirit of holiness he indicates the mystery of the Trinity. For he who was incarnate, who obscured what he really was, was then predestined according to the Spirit of holiness to be manifested in power as the Son of God by rising from the dead, as it is written in Psalm 84: “Truth is risen from the earth.” For every ambiguity and hesitation was made firm and sure by his resurrection, just as the centurion, when he saw the wonders, confessed that the man placed on the cross was the Son of God. … Note that Paul did not say “because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ” but “because of his resurrection from the dead,” because the resurrection of Christ led to the general resurrection. For this power and victory in Christ appears to be all the greater, in that a dead man could do the same things as he did when he was alive. By this fact he appeared to dissolve death, in order to redeem us. Thus Paul calls him our Lord.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ."

What is said has been made obscure by the close-folding of the words, and so it is necessary to divide it. What then is it, which he says? We preach, says he, Him Who was made of David. But this is plain. Whence then is it plain, that this incarnate "Person" was also the Son of God? First, it is so from the prophets; wherefore he says, "Which He had promised afore by the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures." And this way of demonstration is no weak one. And next also from the very way of His Generation: which also he sets forth by saying, "of the seed of David according to the flesh": for He broke the rule of nature. Thirdly, from the miracles which He did, yielding a demonstration of much power, for "in power" means this. Fourthly, from the Spirit which He gave to them that believe upon Him, and through which He made them all holy, wherefore he saith, "according to the Spirit of holiness." For it was of God only to grant such gifts. Fifthly, from the Resurrection; for He first and He alone raised Himself: and this Himself too said to be above all a miracle sufficient to stop the mouths even of them that behaved shamelessly. For, "Destroy this Temple," He says, "and in three days I will raise it up"; and, "When ye have lifted" Me "up from the earth, then shall ye know that I am He"; and again, This "generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonas." What then is the being "declared?" being shown, being manifested, being judged, being confessed, by the feeling and suffrage of all; by Prophets, by the marvelous Birth after the Flesh, by the power which was in the miracles, by the Spirit, through which He gave sanctification, by the Resurrection, whereby He put an end to the tyranny of death.

Homily on Romans 1

Christ was predestined as to the spirit of sanctification, so that because of his incorruptibility he might rise again before anyone else and open the way of resurrection for the children of God.… The nature of the resurrection (not of all who rise from the dead but of those who belong to Christ) is prefigured by Christ.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul had to oppose the unbelief of those who accept our Lord Jesus Christ only according to the man whom he put on but do not understand his divinity, which sets him apart from every other creature.

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 4

Christ is the son of David in weakness according to the flesh but Son of God in power according to the Spirit of sanctification.… Weakness relates to David but life eternal to the power of God.

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 5

Jesus was predestined, so that he who was to be the Son of David according to the flesh should nonetheless be in power the Son of God, according to the Spirit of sanctification, for he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. This is that unique act, performed in an ineffable manner, the assumption of a man by the Word of God, so that he might truly and properly be called at once the Son of God and the Son of Man—the Son of Man because of the man who was assumed, the Son of God because of the only begotten God who assumed him.

On Predestination 15.31

With respect to this predestination Christ was glorified before the foundation of the world, so that as a result of his resurrection from the dead he might have glory at the Father’s right hand, where he now sits. Thus, when he saw that his predestined glorification had come, in order that what had already been done by predestination might now also take place in fact, he prayed: “Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.”

Commentary on John 105.8

As Christ was predestined to be the Son of God in power, so we too have been predestined to be sons of God, not however in power but by grace, having been made worthy of such a calling and having received it only by the will of God the Father. There is a big difference here between Emmanuel and us. For even if he was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and so we can say that the Son of God was one of us in his humanity, still, in power and in truth he is the natural Son, and it is through him that we are made sons as well.… We stand in the same relation to him as images do to their original.

Commentary on Romans

Before his crucifixion and death the Lord Jesus Christ did not appear to be God either to the Jews or even to the disciples. For they were offended by human things, as when they saw him eating and drinking and sleeping and urinating, and not even his miracles made them change their minds. So, for instance, when they saw the miracle which he performed with the sea, they said: “Who is this, that even the sea and the winds obey him?” … But after he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and the Holy Spirit came, and after miracles of every kind which they performed by calling on his adorable name, all those who believed recognized that he was God and the only begotten Son of God.

Interpretation of the Letter to the ROMANS.102

By his miracles and resurrection and by the descent of the Holy Spirit, it was made plain and certain to the world that Christ was the Son of God.

Orthodox Faith 4.18

Above he said: "concerning His Son," and now he proves how He was known as the Son of God, and says that He was declared, that is, shown, established, recognized; for declaration is recognition itself, a verdict and decision. For all recognized and decided that He is the Son of God. How so? "In power," that is, through the power of signs which He performed. Moreover, "according to the Spirit of holiness," through which He sanctified believers; for to grant this is proper to God. Also "through the resurrection from the dead," for He was the first, and moreover He alone raised Himself. Thus, He was known and revealed as the Son of God through the resurrection; for this too is a great thing, as He Himself says: "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He" (Jn. 8:28).

Commentary on Romans

Having commended Christ's origin, he now commends his power, and mentions three things. First, his predestination, when he says, who was predestined; second, his dignity or power, when he says, the Son of God in power; third, the sign or effect, when he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification.

In regard to the first it should be noted that the word 'predestination' is taken from 'destination'; for something is said to be predestined as though destined beforehand. But destination is taken in two senses: in one sense, to destine is to send, for those who are sent to achieve some purpose are said to be destined, in accord with 1 Maccabees: some of the people were destined, and they went to the king (1 Macc 1:14). In another sense, to destine is to determine, as in 2 Maccabees: Eleazar destined not to do any unlawful things (2 Macc 6:20). But this second meaning seems to be derived from the first. For as a courier who is sent is directed to something, so whatever we determine we direct to some end. According to this, therefore, to predestine is nothing more than to determine beforehand in the heart what is to be done in regard to some thing.

Now someone can determine about a future thing or action: in one way, as to its make-up, as a builder determines how he should build a house; in another way, as to the use or governance of the thing, as when someone determines how to use his horse. It is to this second predetermination and not the first that predestination pertains.

For what one uses is referred to an end, because, as Augustine says in the book, On Christian Doctrine: to use is to refer something to an end to be enjoyed. When, however, a thing is made, it is not by that very fact directed to something else. Hence, the pre-determination of a thing's make-up cannot properly be called predestination. Therefore, to deny predestination is the same as to deny the eternal divine pre-determination about things to be done in time. But because all natural things pertain to the make-up of the thing itself, for they are either the principles of which things are made or what follows from such principles, it follows that natural things do not properly fall under predestination; for example, it is not proper to say that man is predestined to have hands. What is left is that predestination is properly said only of things that are above nature, to which things the rational creature is ordained.

But God alone is above the nature of the rational creature, who is united to him by grace: in one way, as regards God's own act, as when foreknowledge of the future, which belongs to God alone, is communicated to a man by the grace of prophecy. Of this sort are all the graces called graces freely given. In another way, as regards God himself, to whom the rational creature is united in the common manner through the effect of love: he who abides in love abides in God and God in him (1 John 4:16). This is done through sanctifying grace, which is the grace of adoption. In another way, which is particular to Christ, it is done through a union in personal being; and this is called the grace of union.

Therefore, just as a man's union with God through the grace of adoption falls under predestination, so also the union with God in person through the grace of union falls under predestination. And as regards this he says, who was predestined the Son of God.

But to prevent this from being referred to the sonship of adoption, he adds, in power. As if to say: he was predestined to be such a Son as to have equal, indeed the same, power as God the Father, because, as it is said: worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and divinity (Rev 5:12); in fact Christ himself is the power of God: Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24). Hence, whatever the Father does the Son does likewise (John 5:19).

In regard to the graces freely given, one is not said to be predestined in the strict sense, because such graces are not directly ordained to direct to his ultimate end the one who receives them, but to direct others by them, as it is said: to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit unto profit (1 Cor 12:7).

Now it is obvious that anything which exists of itself is the measure and rule of things which exist in virtue of something else and through participation. Hence, the predestination of Christ, who was predestined to be the Son of God by nature, is the measure and rule of our life and therefore of our predestination, because we are predestined to adoptive sonship, which is a participation and image of natural sonship: whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29).

Therefore, just as the man Christ was not predestined to be the natural Son of God because of any antecedent merits, but solely from grace, so we are predestined to be adopted sons of God solely from grace and not from our merits: do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you: it is because of my justice that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land (Deut 9:4).

It is clear, therefore, what the goal of that predestination is, namely, that one be a son of God in power. But we must still inquire who it is that has been predestined to this. For since predestination implies antecedence, it seems that the one predestined to be the Son of God in power was not always the Son of God in power; for predestination does not seem to be concerned with what always has been, since that involves nothing antecedent. Hence if we suppose, according to Nestorius, that the person of the Son of man were other than the person of the Son of God, there would be no problem, because we could say that the created person of the Son of man did not exist eternally but began in time to be the Son of God in power. The same would apply if one were to say the hypostasis or suppositum of the Son of God and of the Son of man were distinct. But this is alien to the faith, as has been said.

Therefore, since not only the person but also the hypostasis and suppositum of the Son of God and of the Son of man are the same, so that it cannot be truly and properly said that the Son of man was made the Son of God, lest any created suppositum be implied of whom Son of God would be newly predicated, for an equal reason it does not seem possible to say that the Son of man was predestined to be the Son of God, because 'the Son of man' presupposes the eternal suppositum, who was always the Son of God. Hence, the antecedent which predestination involves has no place.

For this reason Origen says that the text should not read, who was predestined, but, who was destined the Son of God in power, so that no antecedence is indicated. If this is accepted, the sense is plain, because Christ was destined, i.e., sent into the world by God the Father as the true Son of God in divine power.

But because all the Latin texts generally have who was predestined, others have explained this according to the custom of Scripture whereby something is considered to be made when it is made known, as the Lord after the resurrection says: all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matt 28:18), because it was after the resurrection that he made known that such power had been given to him from eternity. But if this is correct, the word predestined is not taken in the proper sense, because predestination concerns matters pertaining to grace; whereas no grace was given to Christ by the fact that his divine power was made known, but rather to us. Hence, it is even stated in a Gloss that according to this sense, predestined is used in the wider sense of 'foreknown,' so that the sense would be: Christ was predestined, i.e., foreknown, from eternity to be revealed in time as the Son of God in power.

Therefore, others, relating predestination to the union itself, did not attribute it to the person but to the nature, so that the sense would be: who was predestined the Son of God in power, i.e., whose nature was predestined to be united to him who is the Son of God in power. But even this explanation is improper and extorted. For since predestination implies an ordering to an end, predestination affects that to which it belongs to be ordered to an end by its own activity. But it is not the nature but the person that acts for an end.

Therefore, if the word 'predestination' be taken in the strict sense, predestination must be attributed to the very person of Christ. But because the person of Christ subsists in two natures, the human and the divine, something can be said of him with respect to either nature. For just as something can be said of a man regarding his body, for example, to be touched or wounded, and something regarding his soul, for example, to understand and to will, so, too, something can be said of Christ both as to his divine nature, as when he says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and as to his human nature, as when we say that he was crucified and died. It is in this way that he is said to be predestined according to his human nature. For although the person of Christ has always been the Son of God, nevertheless it was not always a fact that, while existing in a human nature, he was the Son of God; rather, this was due to an ineffable grace.

There is another consideration concerning the participle made (Rom 1:3), which designates a real act, and the participle predestined, which designates an act of the soul. For the soul, through its intellect and reason, can distinguish things that are joined in reality. For one can think of a white wall and speak separately about the fact that it is a wall and separately about the fact that it is white. So, too, in predestination. For predestination can be attributed to the person of Christ inasmuch as he subsists in a human nature, even though it is not attributed to him as subsisting in the divine nature. This is why the Apostle first presents the Son of God as being incarnate and then attributes predestination to him, to let it be understood that he was predestined according as he was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Rom 1:3). Thus, in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, from the Son of God he descends to the flesh and from the flesh; according to predestination, he ascends to the Son of God, in order to show that neither did the glory of the Godhead prevent the weakness of the flesh nor did the weakness of the flesh diminish the majesty of the Godhead.

In the Gloss it is asked, first, whether Christ is the Son of God according as he is man. It seems so, because here is Christ, who was predestined to be the Son of God; but he was predestined to be the Son of God according as he is a man. Therefore, as a man he is the Son of God. However, I answer that if the as denotes the unity of the person, it is true that as man he is the Son of God, because the person of God and man is one. But if it designates the condition of the nature or its cause, it is false. For it is not from the human nature that he is Son of God. In the argument there is a fallacy of composition and division, because the as can modify the participle predestined, and taken this way it is true that as man he is predestined; or it can modify that being the Son of God to which the predestination is ordained, and taken this way it is false. For he was not predestined that as man he be Son of God; and this is the sense of the words assumed by the argument.

The second question is whether Christ as man is a person. I answer that if the as is referred to the very suppositum of the man, it must be admitted that this suppositum is a divine person. But if it designates the condition of the nature or the cause, taken this way Christ as man is not a person, because the human nature does not cause a new personhood in Christ. For it is joined to a nobler person into whose personhood it passes.

Likewise, an objection is made against a statement in the Gloss, namely, that the one who assumed and what he assumed are one person. But what the Son of God assumed is a human nature. Therefore, the human nature is a person. I answer that such expressions must be explained so that the meaning is this: he who assumed and the nature he assumed are united in one person.

The fourth question is whether this is true: a man was assumed by the Word. It would seem so according to the Psalm: blessed is he whom you did choose and assume (Ps 65:4). I answer that since a man implies a suppositum, in this case an eternal one, it cannot properly be said that a man was assumed by the Word; for a same thing is not assumed by itself. Hence, wherever the expression man was assumed is found, it is taken as the human nature.

The fifth question is whether this is true: this man has always existed. The answer is that it is true, because a man supposes a suppositum, in this case an eternal one. Hence it is said: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb 13:8). However, the statement is not true if man is taken precisely as man. For it is not true that that man, as man, always has existed, but as he is Son of God.

So, the matters concerning the preordainment and power of the Son of God are clear. But a third matter remains, namely concerning the sign, which is touched upon when he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification.

It is the custom of divine power to sanctify men by conferring the Holy Spirit: I am the Lord who sanctifies you (Lev 20:8). He alone can give the Holy Spirit: thus says God, the Lord who created the heavens, who gives breath to the people upon it and the Spirit to those who walk in it (Isa 42:5). Therefore, it is clear that Christ has divine power, because he gives the Holy Spirit: when the Counselor comes whom I shall send (John 15:26). Furthermore, it is by his power that we are sanctified: you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11).

He says, therefore, that Christ is the Son of God in power and appears according to the Spirit of sanctification, i.e., inasmuch as he gives the sanctifying Spirit. This sanctification began by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead: for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39). However, this does not mean that no one had received the sanctifying Spirit before Christ's resurrection, but that from the time he arose, a more copious and general Spirit of sanctification began to be given.

It can also mean that two signs of the divine power in Christ are designated here. First, indeed, from the fact that he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification, whether it be understood according to the sanctifying Spirit, as has been explained, or in view of the fact that he was conceived in the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit—which, of course, is a sign of the divine power in him according to the words of Luke: the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and further on: therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

The second sign of the divine power is the raising of the dead: as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son (John 5:21). The sense, therefore, is this: that Christ is the Son of God in power is evident from his resurrection from the dead, i.e., from the fact that he made the dead rise with him: many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised (Matt 27:52), and will finally make all rise: all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth (John 5:28).

Or it can be understood of a spiritual resurrection of the dead, i.e., from sin: awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead (Eph 5:14). Those who are raised by him are called Christ's dead because they are raised by him just as those under a doctor's care are called his sick.

But these two signs can be referred to two previous clauses in this way: who was made to him according to the flesh of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Rom 1:3), and this according to the Spirit of sanctification, from whom his flesh was conceived; and who was predestined the Son of God in power, and this is apparent in the resurrection of the dead. But the first explanation is better.

Commentary on Romans

Paul says that he has received grace and apostleship through Christ, the mediator between God and men—grace with respect to his patience in many labors and apostleship with respect to his preaching authority. For Christ was himself called an apostle, i.e., one who was sent by the Father, because he said that he had been sent to preach the gospel to the poor. And everything which is his, he gives to his disciples also. Grace is said to be spread on his lips. For he gives grace to his apostles, by which those who are struggling may say: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I but the grace of God which is with me.” … It was only through the grace which had been given to the apostles that the Gentiles, who were strangers from the covenant of God and from the life of Israel, could believe in the gospel. Through this grace it is said that they came to faith because of the preaching of the apostles, and it is recorded that by the grace given to them the sound of the name of Christ went out into all the world, reaching even those who were at Rome.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

After the resurrection Christ was revealed as the Son of God in power. He gave grace to make sinners righteous and appointed apostles, of whom Paul says here that he is one, so that the apostleship might be granted by the grace of God’s gift and not because the apostles were Jews. They received this authority from God the Father through Christ the Lord, so that as representatives of the Lord they might make his teaching acceptable by signs of power. Unbelieving Jews, who had been jealous of this power when they saw it in the Savior, were all the more tormented at seeing it admired by the masses in his servants. For power bears witness to the teaching, so that although what is preached is incredible to the world, it might be made credible by deeds. He says that the apostles have been sent to preach the faith to all nations, that they might obey and be saved, that the gift of God may appear to have been granted not only to the Jews but to all the nations, and that this is the will of God, to have pity on all in Christ and through Christ, by the preaching of his ambassadors.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"By Whom we have received grace and Apostleship for obedience to the faith."

See the candor of the servant. He wishes nothing to be his own, but all his Master's. And indeed it was the Spirit that gave this. Wherefore He saith, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth": and again, "Separate Me Paul and Barnabas." And in the Epistle to the Corinthians, he says, that "to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge"; and that It divideth all as It willeth. And in addressing the Milesians, he says, "Over which the Holy Ghost hath made you shepherds and overseers." You see, he calls the things of the Spirit, the Son's, and the things of the Son, the Spirit's. "Grace and Apostleship;" that is, it is not we that have achieved for ourselves, that we should become Apostles. For it was not by having toiled much and labored that we had this dignity allotted to us, but we received grace, and the successful result is a part of the heavenly gift. "For obedience to the faith." So it was not the Apostles that achieved it, but grace that paved the way before them. For it was their part to go about and preach, but to persuade was of God, Who wrought in them. As also Luke saith, that "He opened their heart"; and again, To whom it was given to hear the word of God. "To obedience;" he says not, to questioning and parade of argument but "to obedience." For we were not sent, he means, to argue, but to give those things which we had trusted to our hands. For when the Master declareth aught, they that hear should not be nice and curious handlers of what is told them, but receivers only; for this is why the Apostles were sent, to speak what they had heard, not to add aught from their own stock, and that we for our part should believe-that we should believe what?-"concerning His Name." Not that we should be curious about the essence, but that we should believe on the Name; for this it was which also wrought the miracles. For it says, "in the Name of Jesus Christ rise up and walk." And this too requireth faith, neither can one grasp aught of these things by reasoning. "Among all nations, among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ." What? did Paul preach then to all the nations? Now that he ran through the whole space from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and from thence again went forth to the very ends of the earth, is plain from what he writes to the Romans; but even if he did not come to all, yet still what he says is not false, for he speaks not of himself alone, but of the twelve Apostles, and all who declared the word after them. And in another sense, one should not see any fault to find with the phrase, if about himself, when one considers his ready mind, and how that after death he ceaseth not to preach in all parts of the world. And consider how he extols the gift, and shows that it is great and much more lofty than the former, since the old things were with one nation, but this gift drew sea and land to itself.

Homily on Romans 1

Paul received grace in baptism and apostleship when he was sent by the Holy Spirit, for apostle means “sent” in Greek. The purpose of this was that the Gentiles might submit not to the law but to faith.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul preserves the main point of his case very well, so that no one would dare say that he has been led to the gospel because of the merits of his previous life. How could one claim this, when even the apostles themselves … could not have received their own apostleship unless they had first … received grace, which cleanses and justifies sinners?

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 6

Note the gratitude. Nothing, he says, is ours, but everything has been received by us through the Son. I received the apostleship and grace through the Spirit. "He," says the Lord, "will guide you" (John 16:13). And the Spirit says: "Set apart for Me Saul and Barnabas" (Acts 13:2), and: "to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom" (1 Cor. 12:8). What does this mean? That what belongs to the Spirit belongs to the Son and vice versa. Grace, he says, and apostleship "we received," that is, we became apostles not by our own merits, but by grace from above. But persuasion is also a work of grace; for the work of the apostles was to go and preach, but to persuade the listeners belongs entirely to God. "To bring about the obedience of faith." We were sent, he says, not for disputation nor for investigation or proof, but "to bring about the obedience of faith," so that those being taught would listen, believing without any objection.

We received grace "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the nations" — not I alone, but the other apostles as well: for Paul did not reach all nations; unless someone should say that if not during his lifetime, then after his death he goes to all nations through his epistle. And they would believe upon hearing the name of Christ, not about His essence; for the name of Christ worked miracles, and it itself demands faith, because it too cannot be grasped by reason. See what a gift the preaching of the Gospel is: it was imparted not to one nation, as the Old Testament was, but to all nations.

Commentary on Romans

After commending Christ in his origin and power, he now commends him in his liberality, which is shown by the gifts he conferred on believers. And he sets out two gifts.

One is common to all believers, namely grace, by which we are restored. We receive this from God through Christ; hence, he says, through whom we believers have received grace; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17); and below: by whom also we have access through faith to this grace wherein we stand (Rom 5:2). For it is fitting that just as all things were made by the Word (John 1:3), so by the Word as by the art of God Almighty all things should be restored; as an artisan repairs a house by means of the same art as he built it: God was pleased to reconcile through him all things, whether on earth or in heaven (Col 1:20).

The other spiritual gift was conferred on the apostles. This he touches on when he says, and apostleship, which is the chief office in the Church: God has appointed in the Church, first, apostles (1 Cor 12:28). 'Apostle' is the same as 'sent.' For they were sent by Christ, bearing, as it were, his authority and office: as the Father has sent me, even so I send you (John 20:21), i.e., with full authority. Hence Christ himself is called an apostle: consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession (Heb 3:1); hence, too, through him as chief apostle or one sent, the others secondarily obtained apostleship: he chose twelve whom he called apostles (Luke 6:13).

Now he sets out the grace of apostleship as a preface both because they obtained apostleship not through their merits but from grace: I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle; but by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Cor 15:9); and because apostleship cannot be worthily obtained unless sanctifying grace precedes it: grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift (Eph 4:7).

Then he describes this apostleship: first, from its aim, when he adds, for obedience to the faith. As if to say: we have been sent with this aim, to induce men to obey the faith. Obedience finds its scope in things we can do voluntarily; in matters of faith, since they are above reason, we consent voluntarily. For no one believes unless he wills to, as Augustine says. Consequently, in matters of faith, the following has a place: but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered (Rom 6:17). Concerning this aim it is said: I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide (John 15:16).

Second, it is described from its extent when he says in all the nations, because they were directed to instruct not only the Jews but all nations: go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19). Paul in particular had received a mandate to all nations, so that the words of Isaiah apply to him: it is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the nations (Isa 49:6). Yet the Jews were not excluded from his apostolate, especially those who lived among the gentiles: inasmuch as I am an apostle to the gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them (Rom 11:13–14).

Third, from the completeness of its power when he says for his name, i.e., in his place and with his authority. For as Christ is said to have come in the Father's name and had the Father's full authority, so the apostles are said to have come in Christ's name, as though in Christ's person: what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10). Or by these words it is described from its end, i.e., to broadcast his name without seeking any earthly reward for himself: he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name (Acts 9:15). Hence, he urged all believers to do the same: do everything in the name of Jesus Christ (Col 3:17).

Commentary on Romans

Paul is said to be called to be an apostle, and the Romans are also called, though not to be apostles. Rather they are called to be holy in the obedience of faith. We have already spoken above about the different callings.

Commentary on the Epistle to the ROMANS.116

Paul says this in order to show that the Romans too, made up as they were of all the nations inhabiting the world, rightly accepted the preaching of his message.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

This is by the mission of us who are preaching the name of Christ to all the nations, among whom you too have been called, because the gift of God has been sent to all, so that when they hear that they have been called along with others, they will know that they must not act as if they are under the law, since the other nations accepted the faith of Christ without the law of Moses.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ."

That is, along with whom ye also are: and he does not say, that he called the others with you, but you with the others. For if in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free, much less is there king and private man. For even ye were called and did not come over of yourselves.

Homily on Romans 1

Paul teaches here that this salvation had come not only to the Jews, as some Jewish Christians thought.

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 6

Paul tells them here that he is not doing anything improper, nor invading fields assigned to others, for God had appointed him to preach to the Gentiles.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Here he crushes the arrogance of the Romans. You have not received more than the other nations, over whom you consider yourselves masters; therefore, just as we preach to the other nations, so also to you: do not boast. Otherwise: you too were called, you were preceded by grace, and did not come on your own.

Commentary on Romans

Fourth, as to his power over those to whom he was writing and who were subject to his apostleship. Hence he says among whom, i.e., I number among those subject to my apostolate even you Romans howsoever lofty: he lays it low, the lofty city, the foot of the poor, i.e., of Christ, tramples it, the steps of the needy, namely, of the apostles Peter and Paul (Isa 26:5ff.); we were the first to come all the way to you with the Gospel of Christ (2 Cor 10:14).

He adds the called of Jesus Christ, in accord with Hosea: I will call 'not my people' mine (Hos 1:9); or, you are called that you may be of Jesus Christ, as is said below: those whom he predestined he also called (Rom 8:30). Or, you are called of Jesus Christ, i.e., you are named from Christ, Christians: so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians (Acts 11:21).

Commentary on Romans

I will not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle, so that if the Father and the Son are both to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.”

Against Praxeas 13

I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."

Against Praxeas

The blessing of peace and grace, which the apostle Paul gives to all God’s beloved to whom he is writing, is, I think, analogous to the blessing of Noah on Shem and Japheth, which was fulfilled in the Spirit toward all those who were blessed in the same way. It is comparable to the blessing with which Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and Jacob by his father Isaac, and the twelve patriarchs who were blessed by their father Israel; or the blessing of Moses, with which he blessed the twelve tribes of Israel. I do not think that the blessing of the apostle’s, by which he blessed the churches of Christ, is inferior to any of these.… The apostle writes in the Spirit of God and blesses in the Spirit. Therefore it is through the same Spirit that those who are blessed by the apostle receive their blessings, as long as those on whom the blessing comes are found to be worthy of it. Otherwise it will happen as it is written: “And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you.” What is written about peace will also be the case with grace, because Paul aligns grace with peace.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

“To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints.” Although Paul is writing to the Romans, nevertheless he indicates that he is writing to those who are in the love of God. Who are these, if not those who believe rightly concerning the Son of God? These are the ones who are holy and who are said to have been called. For someone who understands incorrectly is not said to have been called, just as those who act according to the law have not rightly understood Christ and have done injury to God the Father, by doubting whether there is full salvation in Christ. Therefore they are not holy, nor are they said to have been called.“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul says that grace and peace are with those who believe rightly. It is grace by which sinners have been cleansed and peace by which former enemies have been reconciled to the Creator, as the Lord says: “Whatever house you enter and they receive you, say: Peace be to this house.” And so as to teach that without Christ there is no peace or hope, Paul added that grace and peace are not only from God the Father but also from the Lord Jesus Christ. He says that God is our Father because of our origin, since all things are from him, and that Christ is Lord, because we have been redeemed by his blood and made children of God.

Commentary on Paul’s EPISTLES.131

You see, then, that we are told that the grace of the Father and the Son is one, and the peace of the Father and the Son is one, but this grace and peace is the fruit of the Spirit, as the Apostle taught us himself, saying: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience."

On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chapter 12

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

See how continually he puts the word "called," saying, "called to be an Apostle; among whom ye also are called; to all that be in Rome, called:" and this he does not out of superfluity of words, but out of a wish to remind them of the benefit. For since among them which believed, it was likely that there would be some of the consuls and rulers as well as poor and common men, casting aside the inequality of ranks, he writes to them all under one appellation. But if in things which are more needful and which are spiritual, all things are set forth as common both to slaves and to free, for instance, the love from God, the calling, the Gospel, the adoption, the grace, the peace, the sanctification, all things else, how could it be other than the uttermost folly, whom God had joined together, and made to be of equal honor in the greater things, those to divide on account of things on earth? on this ground, I presume, from the very outstart, this blessed Apostle, after casting out this mischievous disease, conducts them to the mother of blessings, humble-mindedness. This made servants better, since they learnt that they should take no harm from their servitude, while they had the true freedom; this would incline masters to be gentle, as being instructed that they have no advantage in being free, unless the goods of faith have the first place given them. And that you may learn that he was not doing this to work confusion, by dashing all things, but still knew the best distinction, he wrote not simply to all that were in Rome, but with a definition added, "beloved of God." For this is the best discrimination, and shows whence the sanctification was. Whence then was the sanctification? from Love. For after saying, "beloved," then he proceeds, "called to be saints," showing that it is from this that the fount of all blessings is. But saints he calls all the faithful. "Grace unto you and peace."

Oh address, that bringeth countless blessings to us! This also Christ bade the Apostles to use as their first word when entering into houses. Wherefore it is from this that Paul also in all places takes his beginning, from grace and peace; for it was no small war which Christ put an end to, but indeed one varying and of every kind and of a long season; and this not from our labors, but through His grace. Since then love presented us with grace, and grace with peace, having set them down in the due order of an address, he prays over them that they may abide perpetual and unmoved, so that no other war may again be blown into flame, and beseeches Him that gave, to keep these things firmly settled, saying as follows, "Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." See in this passage, the "from" is common to the Son and the Father, and this is equivalent to "of whom." For he did not say, Grace be unto you and peace from God the Father, "through" our Lord Jesus Christ; but, "from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Strange! how mighty is the love of God! we which were enemies and disgraced, have all at once become saints and sons. For when he calls Him Father, he shows them to be sons; and when he says sons, he has unveiled the whole treasure of blessings.

Let us then keep showing a conversation worthy of the gift, and hold on in peace and holiness. For other dignities are but for a time, and are brought to an end along with this life present, and may be bought with money (whence one might say they are not dignities at all but names of dignities only, having their strength in the investiture of fine array and the servility of attendants), but this as having been given of God, the gift of sanctification and adoption, is not broken through even by death, but even here maketh men conspicuous, and also departs with us upon our journey to the life to come.

Homily on Romans 1

Paul is called to be an apostle to all believers, whom God loves impartially, without showing any preference for Jew or Greek. They are saints because of God’s calling, not because of their own holiness. Paul’s greeting is designed to recall God’s benefits and to pray that they may remain perfect in us, because our sins have been freely forgiven.… Paul also insists that Jews and Gentiles live in peace, since both of them have received the same grace.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul does not say “to the saints” lightly—for “many are called but few are chosen” and not all have remained in their calling—but so that he would not be throwing holy things to dogs. … According to the heretics, if Christ is the Lord and God is our Father, then the Father will be a servant of Christ, for as the son is, so is the father. But it is not like that at all. Paul said that God is our Father, in order to show his grace, and that Christ is Lord, in order that the Romans should not become proud and think that because they too were sons of God they could despise the glory of the Son or raise themselves up beyond what was natural. Paul called God “the Father” because he judges no one, but the Son he called “Lord,” because he is the judge. He calls God “the Father” so as to point out his guardianship over us. He calls the Son “Lord” so that we might understand that we are called sons by the goodness of God but that Jesus is the true God by nature and our Lord.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek CHURCH.136

Paul says to all because with Christ everyone is equal. When he says: “to those beloved of God, called to be holy,” he cuts out unbelievers. The forgiveness of sins and the gift of sonship may be what he means by “grace,” and the defeat of the invisible enemies, from whom Christ has delivered us, may be what he means by “peace,” as well as the refusal of the body to rebel against the reasonings of the soul and godly agreement with one another.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Here again Paul has emphasized God’s grace rather than the saints’ merit, for he does not say “to those loving God” but rather “to God’s beloved.”

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 7

Instead of saying “greetings,” Paul says “Grace to you and peace.” Grace then is from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, by which our sins, which had turned us from God, are forgiven; and from them also is this peace, whereby we are reconciled to God. Since through grace hostilities dissolve once sins are remitted, now we may cling in peace to him from whom our sins alone had torn us.… But when these sins have been forgiven through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall have peace with no separation between us and God.

Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 8

First Paul prays that the Romans might receive the grace of God, by which all believers enjoy salvation. Then he asks for peace, by which God gives to all the restoration of virtue. For the one who accepts the gospel way of life has peace with God. The one who serves him is amenable to everyone.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Not simply: "to all who are in Rome," but: "beloved of God." From what is it evident that they are beloved? From sanctification; and he calls all believers saints. He added: "called," implanting in the memory of the Romans the beneficence of God and showing that even if among them there were both consuls and prefects, God called all with the very same calling as commoners, having equally loved and sanctified you. Therefore, since you are equally both beloved, and called, and sanctified, do not exalt yourselves over those of humble birth.

"Grace to you and peace." And the Lord commanded the apostles that when they enter houses, they should pronounce this word first. The war ended by Christ, which sin had generated for us against God, was no light matter, and that peace was acquired not by our labors, but by the grace of God: thus, first grace, then peace. The Apostle prays for the continuous and unbroken abiding of both these blessings, so that again, if we fall into sin, a new war would not be kindled.

"From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Oh, how all-powerful is the grace that has proceeded from the love of God! Enemies and dishonored, we came to have God Himself as Father. Therefore, from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, may grace and peace be unwavering among you. They bestowed them, and they are able also to preserve them.

Commentary on Romans

Then the persons greeted are described: first, from their place when he says to all who are in Rome. To all, indeed, because he sought the salvation of all: I wish that all were as I myself am (1 Cor 7:7); also the Lord had said to him: you must bear witness also at Rome (Acts 23:11).

Second, they are described from their gift of grace, the beloved of God. First, the primary source of grace is mentioned, namely, God's love: he loved his people, all those consecrated to him were in his hand (Deut 33:3); not that we loved God first, but that he first loved us (1 John 4:10). For God's love is not called forth by any goodness in a creature, as human love is; rather, he causes the creature's goodness, because to love is to will goodness to the beloved. But God's love is the cause of things: whatever the Lord desires, he makes (Ps 135:6).

Second, their calling when he adds called. This call is twofold. One is outward, as when he called Peter and Andrew (Matt 4:18–19), while the other is inward, when it is according to an interior inspiration: I called and you refused to listen (Prov 1:24).

Third, he mentions the grace of justification when he says to be saints, i.e., sanctified by grace and the sacrament of grace: but you were washed, you were sanctified, to be beloved by God, called to be saints (1 Cor 6:11).

Then the blessings he wishes them are mentioned. These are grace and peace. One of these, namely grace, is the first among God's gifts, because by it the sinner is made holy: they are justified by his grace as a gift (Rom 3:24). The other, namely peace, is his last gift, which is completed in happiness: he makes peace in your borders (Ps 147:14). For perfect peace will exist when the will is at rest in the fullness of all good, a state that results from being free of all evil: my people will abide in the beauty of peace (Isa 32:18). Consequently, in these two blessings all those between are understood.

Then he shows from whom these blessings are to be expected when he adds from God our Father: every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (Jas 1:17). The Lord bestows grace and glory (Ps 84:11). He adds and from the Lord Jesus Christ because, as it is said: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He himself says: my peace I give to you (John 14:27).

The phrase God our Father can be taken for the whole Trinity, which is called Father, because names implying a relationship to the creature are common to the whole Trinity, for example, Creator and Lord. But he adds and from the Lord Jesus Christ not to imply that he is another person distinct from the three, but to stress the human nature by whose mystery the gifts of grace come to us: through whom he has granted to us his precious and very great promises (2 Pet 1:4). Or it might be said that the phrase from God our Father stands for the person of the Father, who is called the Father of Christ by propriety, but our Father by appropriation: I am ascending to my Father and to your Father (John 20:17).

Then the person of the Son is meant when it is said, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. The person of the Holy Spirit is not expressly mentioned, because he is understood in his gifts, which are grace and peace, or even because he is understood whenever there is mention of the Father and of the Son, for he is their union and bond.

Commentary on Romans

" Paul, in like manner, everywhere speaks of "God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." When writing to the Romans, he gives thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. To the Galatians he declares himself to be "an apostle not of men, neither by man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Against Praxeas

Sometimes the apostle writes in the way he does to the Romans, giving thanks for everyone, but sometimes he just gives thanks without adding “for all of you.” If you notice this you will realize that in the places where he gives thanks for everyone, he does not draw attention to any grave faults or sins in them. But where he criticizes people or reproves them, he does not add to his thanksgiving that he gives thanks for them all—see, e.g., 1 Corinthians or Colossians. In Galatians he does not even give thanks at all, because he is surprised that they have so quickly abandoned the gospel that called them and chosen another one instead.2Paul thus begins his letter with thanksgiving. To give thanks to God is to offer him a sacrifice of praise, and therefore he adds “through Jesus Christ,” as through a high priest. Anyone who wants to offer a sacrifice to God ought to know that he should offer it through the hands of a priest. But note also this important addition: “(to) my God.” This can only be the voice of the saints, whose God he is, as he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No one can say that the Lord God is his if his god is his stomach, or if his god is greed, or if his god is the glory of this life and the pomp of this world or the power of things which are perishing. For whatever anyone worships more than other things, that is his god. But let us see what it is that the apostle gives thanks for. “Because,” he says, “your faith is proclaimed in all the world.” “In all the world,” simply understood, means that in many parts of the world, that is of this earth, the faith and religion of those at Rome is preached. But if, as in some passages, the universe is meant here, consisting of heaven and earth and everything in them, it may be understood to mean that the powers, of whom it is said that “they rejoice over one sinner who repents,” rejoice much more over the conversion and the faith of the Romans when the angels who ascend and descend to the Son of Man proclaim it to them. For these powers are amazed at the conversion of the Gentiles and that the sound of the apostles of Christ Jesus has gone out into all the world. Finally, they rejoice even at the sufferings of those in this world, as the apostle says: “We have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.” The verse may also be understood as meaning that this faith which the Romans have is the same faith as, and none other than, that which is proclaimed and believed in all the world and which is preached not only on earth but in heaven as well. For by his blood Jesus reconciled not only those things which are on earth but also those things which are in heaven, and in his name not only earthly powers but also heavenly and infernal ones bow the knee. This is what is meant by preaching the faith in the whole world, through which the entire earth may be subjected to God. It may be noticed that there is no “second” which corresponds to “first,” but we have already explained that Paul’s phrases are not always complete. On the other hand, it may be that “first” is picked up by “I want you to know brethren” [in verse 13].

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

For what is there either in peace so suitable, or in a war of persecution so necessary, as to maintain the due severity of the divine rigour? Which he who resists, will of necessity wander in the unsteady course of affairs, and will be tossed hither and thither by the various and uncertain storms of things; and the helm of counsel being, as it were, wrenched from his hands he will drive the ship of the Church's safety among the rocks; so that it would appear that the Church's safety can be no otherwise secured, than by repelling any who set themselves against it as adverse waves, and by maintaining the ever-guarded rule of discipline itself as if it were the rudder of safety in the tempest. Nor is it now but lately that this counsel has been considered by us, nor have these sudden appliances against the wicked but recently occurred to us; but this is read of among us as the ancient severity, the ancient faith, the ancient discipline, since the apostle would not have published such praise concerning us, when he said "that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" unless already from thence that vigour had borrowed the roots of faith from those times; from which praise and glory it is a very great crime to have become degenerate. For it is less disgrace never to have attained to the heraldry of praise, than to have fallen from the height of praise; it is a smaller crime not to have been honoured with a good testimony, than to have lost the honour of good testimonies; it is less discredit to have lain without the announcement of virtues, ignoble without praise, than, disinherited of the faith, to have lost our proper praises. For those things which are proclaimed to the glory of any one, unless they are maintained by anxious and careful pains, swell up into the odium of the greatest crime.

Epistle XXX

We have not just recently adopted this particular course of action, nor have these measures against the ungodly suddenly crossed our mind. For with us, the strictness is ancient, the faith is ancient. The apostle would not have praised us so highly by stating: “Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world,” if this strictness of ours had not already been rooted in the faith of those times.

Letter One 2.2

After finishing his introduction, before all else Paul bears witness to his joy, as the apostle to the Gentiles, that although the Romans ruled the world, they had submitted to the Christian faith, which seemed lowly and stupid to the wise of this world. There were many things about the Romans which he could rejoice in. They were mindful of discipline and eager to do good works, more interested in doing right than in talking about it, which is not far from God’s religion. Nevertheless, he says that most of all he rejoices in this, that word of their faith was circulating everywhere. For it seemed to be a wonderful thing, that the lords of the Gentiles should bow before a promise made to the Jews. Even if they did not believe correctly, nevertheless he was pleased that they had begun to worship one God in the name of Christ, and knew that they could advance further. For this reason he reveals his love for them, when he rejoices at their good start and encourages them to go on. He therefore says that he is giving thanks to God, even though they have not yet received everything, because God is the source of all things. The entire dispensation of our salvation is from God, indeed, but through Christ, not through the law or any prophet. Hence he says that he is giving thanks to God but through Christ, because the report of their faith was an encouragement to many to attribute this very thing to the providence of God through Christ. For either the others who believed rejoiced, having been strengthened by seeing their rulers and brothers established in the faith, or at least those who did not believe could easily have believed by following their example. For the lesser quickly does what he sees being done by the greater.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

An exordium worthy of this blessed spirit, and able to teach all men to offer unto God the firstlings of their good deeds and words, and to render thanks not only for their own, but also for others' well-doings: which also maketh the soul pure from envy and grudging, and draweth God in a greater measure towards the loving spirit of them that so render thanks. Wherefore also elsewhere he says, "Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing." (Eph. i. 3.) And it is fitting that we render thanks not only when rich, but also when poor, not when in health only, but also when sick, not when we thrive only, but also when we have to bear the reverse. For when our affairs are borne onward with a fair wind, to be thankful is not matter of wonder. But when no small tempests be upon us, and the vessel veers about and is in jeopardy, then is the great time for displaying patience and goodness of heart. For this cause Job also gained a crown from hence, and the shameless mouth of the devil did he stop, and show clearly that not even when he saw good days was it through his wealth that he was thankful, but through his much love toward God. And see too what things he is thankful for: not for things earthly and perishing, as power and authority and glory (for these things are of no account), but for real blessings, faith and boldness of speech. And with how much feeling he gives thanks: for he saith not "to God," but "to my God," which also the Prophets do, so making that which is common to all their own. And what is there wonderful in the Prophets doing so? For God himself plainly does it continually to His servants, calling Himself the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, as peculiarly theirs. "That your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." What then, had the whole world heard of the faith of the Romans? Yes, the whole, according to him. And it is not a thing unlikely. For the city was not one of no note, but as being upon a sort of eminence it was on every account conspicuous. But consider, I pray, the power of the preaching, how in a short time by means of publicans and fishermen it took hold upon the very head of all cities, and Syrians became the teachers and guides of Romans. He attests then two excellencies in them, both that they believed, and that they believed with boldness, and that so great as that the fame of them reached into all the world. "For your faith," he says "is spoken of throughout the whole world. Your faith," not your verbal disputations, nor your questionings, nor your syllogisms. And yet there were there many hindrances to the teaching. For having recently acquired the empire of the world they were elated, and lived in riches and luxury, and fishermen brought the preaching there, and they Jews and of the Jews, a nation hated and had in abomination among all men; and they were bidden to worship the Crucified, Who was brought up in Judea. And with the doctrine the teachers proclaimed also an austere life to men who were practised in softness, and were agitated about things present. And they that proclaimed it were poor and common men, of no family, and born of men of no family. But none of these things hindered the course of the word. So great was the power of the Crucified as to carry the word round everywhere. "For it is spoken of," he says, "in all the world." He says not, it is manifested, but, is spoken of, as if all men had them in their mouths.

Homily on Romans 2

God is the God of all by nature but of some only by their own choice and response.… Paul calls God his in this second sense. He thanks God for them all, not just for the Jews, and praises them prudently, in order to encourage them to improve. Perhaps he did this because the whole world stood amazed that the idolatrous Romans had been converted … but probably he was just praising a faith which was now evident.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

It seems that Paul begins by giving thanks in his other epistles too, thereby teaching by word and deed those to whom the letter is written that one ought to begin by thanking God, not only for one’s own but also for others. But here this salutation has a special importance, because after the teaching of Peter, anyonewho wanted to teach them the doctrines of godliness had to show that he accepted Peter’s teaching and was not trying to introduce them to anything which went against that. Therefore his praise of the Romans was no accident. Often in his letters he used the salutation as a way of preparing those who would be better disposed toward him as a result of such praise, for the reading of what had been written.“Through Jesus Christ” had to be added here, not to qualify Christ’s ministry, as it seemed to some of the heretics, but because he is the cause of our thanks. Hence the apostle says that he thanks God for them all and that Christ is the cause of his thanksgiving.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Paul was not saying this in order to flatter them; he was simply telling the truth. For it could not be that what was happening at Rome should not be known all over the world. After all, it was the capital of the empire.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Paul does not say “through Jesus Christ” as if he were some kind of intermediary, but in the context of giving thanks to God, says that we do this because of the Lord Christ. This amazing dispensation which has saved our race through him has taken us captive, along with the rest, by the faith we have in him.Paul does his utmost to win the Romans over, in case they may be thinking that he has something against them, or that following the tradition of Peter he might be coming to order them about, and if indeed they are vexed for this sort of reason, they might refuse to read his letter and miss out on the blessing it would bring. Therefore, starting with thanksgiving and faith, he praised them for keeping it pure and firm, as they all did together, and then with the word proclaimed spoke more personally in praise of the city, and by adding “in all the world” he praised them greatly and exalted them before going on to talk about meeting them in person.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

An introduction befitting the soul of Paul! He teaches us also to thank God, and not only for our own blessings, but also for the blessings of our neighbors, for in this consists love; and to give thanks not for earthly and perishable things, but for the fact that the Romans believed. And by the words "my God" he shows the disposition of his spirit at that time, appropriating the common God to himself, as the prophets also do, and even God Himself, calling Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in order to show His love for them. One must give thanks, he says, "through Jesus Christ," for He is the mediator of our thanksgiving to the Father, not only teaching us to give thanks, but also bringing our thanksgiving to the Father. For what should one give thanks? For the fact that the "faith" of the Romans "is proclaimed throughout the whole world." He testifies before them concerning two things: both that they believed, and that they believed with full assurance, so that their faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world, and through them all receive benefit for themselves, burning with emulation and imitation of the imperial city. Peter also preached in Rome, but Paul, considering his labors as one with his own, gives thanks for the faith of those taught by Peter — so free is he from envy!

Commentary on Romans

After the greeting, the Apostle begins the message, wherein first he shows his affection for his readers, in order to render them benevolent hearers; second, he instructs them in the truth about the power of Christ's grace, at for it is the power of God. He shows his affection for them in three ways: first, by giving thanks for their blessings; second, by the prayer he directs to God on their behalf, at for God is my witness; third, by his desire to visit them, at always in my prayers.

In regard to the first, three things should be noted. First, the order in which he gives thanks, when he says first, I give thanks to my God. For it is necessary that in all affairs, we begin by giving thanks: give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess 5:18); indeed, a person is not worthy to receive a blessing, if he does not express thanks for past blessings: the hope of an ungrateful man will melt like wintry frost (Wis 16:29) and to the place where the streams flow, there they return (Eccl 1:7), because to the source whence blessings come they return, namely, by giving thanks, to flow again by repeated blessings. But we need God's blessing in all we seek or do; consequently, before all else thanks should be given.

Second, he designates three persons, one of whom is the person to whom thanksgiving is made when he says my God to whom thanks are due for all our blessings, because they flow from him: every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above (Jas 1:17). And although he is God of all through creation and governance, as is said below: Lord of all (Rom 10:12), he is particularly the God of the just for three reasons: first, on account of the special care he shows them: the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous (Ps 34:15) and again: the Lord is my light (Ps 27:1); on account of their special worship: this is my God and I will praise him (Exod 15:2); third, because he is their reward: I am your reward exceedingly great (Gen 15:1).

The second person is the mediator, whom he mentions when he says through Jesus Christ. For thanks should be returned to God in the same order in which graces come to us, namely, through Jesus Christ: through him we have access to this grace in which we stand (Rom 5:2).

The third is the person of those for whom he gives thanks, for all of you, because he regarded their graces as his on account of the bond of love. As if to say: I have no greater grace than to hear that my children walk in the truth (3 John 1:4). He purposely says for all of you because he desires to please them all: just as I try to please all men in everything I do (1 Cor 10:33) and wishes the salvation of all: I wish that all were as I myself am (1 Cor 7:7).

Third, he indicates the point about which he is grateful, because your faith is proclaimed in the whole world. He gives thanks for their faith, because it is the foundation of all spiritual blessings: faith is the substance of things hoped for (Heb 11:1). But the reason he commends the Romans on their faith is that they embraced it with ease and continued in it firmly. Hence, even today very many signs of faith are seen by those who visit the holy places, as Jerome says in On the Epistle to the Galatians. However, their faith was not yet perfect, because some of them had been reached by false apostles, who taught that the rites of the law must be joined to the Gospel.

But he rejoices and gives thanks for their faith not only on their account but on account of the benefits accruing therefrom, namely because, being the rulers of the world, their example would lead other nations to accept the faith; for, as a Gloss says, the lesser are quick to do what they see done by the greater. On this account prelates are advised to be good examples to the flock (1 Pet 5:3).

Commentary on Romans

In order to encourage brotherly love, Paul gives God, whom he serves, as a witness, to whom he prays on their behalf, not in keeping the law but in the gospel of his Son, i.e., not in that which Moses the servant handed down but in that which the most beloved Son taught. For the servant is as far from his Lord as the gospel is from the law, not because the law is wrong but because the gospel is better. Therefore Paul serves God in the gospel of his Son in order to show that it is God’s will that men should believe in Christ.“Whom I serve.” How? In my spirit, says Paul, not in the circumcision made with hands, nor in new moons, nor in the sabbath or the choice of foods, but in the spirit, that is, in the mind. Because God is a spirit, it is right that he should be served in spirit or in the mind, for whoever serves him in his mind serves him in faith. This is what the Lord said to the Samaritan woman in John. … He prays without ceasing for them, remembering them in his prayers in order to sow brotherly love among them; indeed, he makes this his desire for them. For who would not love someone when he hears that that person remembers him? For if they had willingly listened to the teaching brought to them in the name of Christ by those who were not sent, how much more would they want to listen to him who they knew was an apostle and whose words were accompanied by power!

Commentary on Paul’s EPISTLES.24

Words these of an Apostle's bowels of affection, the showing forth this of fatherly concernment! And what is it which he says, and why does he call God to witness? He had to declare his feeling toward them. Since then he had not as yet ever seen them, he therefore called no man to witness, but Him Who entereth in the hearts. For since he was saying, "I love you," and as a token thereof alleged his praying continually for them, and wishing to come to them, and neither was this self-evident, he betakes himself to the trustworthy testimony. Will then any one of you be able to boast that he remembers, when praying at his house the entire body of the Church? I think not. But Paul drew near to God in behalf not of one city only, but of the whole world, and this not once, or twice, or thrice, but continually. But if the continually bearing any one about in one's memory would not happen without much love; to have any in one's prayers, and to have them there continually, think what great affection and friendship that implies. But when he says, "Whom I serve with my spirit in the Gospel of His Son," he shows us at once the grace of God, and also his own humble-mindedness; the grace of God because He entrusted to him so great a matter; but his own humility, because he imputes it all not to his own zeal, but to the assistance of the Spirit. But the addition of "the Gospel," shows the kind of ministry. For there are many and diverse modes of service. And as under kings all are ranged under one that beareth kingly power, and all have not to minister about the same thing, but to one belongeth the ministry of ruling armies and to another that of ordering cities and to another again that of keeping treasures in the storehouses, thus also in spiritual things, one serveth God and laboreth in believing and ordering his own life well, and another in undertaking the care of strangers, and another in taking in hand the patronship of them that be in need. As even during the Apostle's own time, they of Stephen's company served God in the guardianship of the widows, others in the teaching of the word, of whom also Paul was, serving in the preaching of the Gospel. And this was the fashion of his service: for it was to this that he was appointed. On this account, he not only calls God to witness, but also says what he was entrusted with, to show that having so great things put into his hands, he would not have called Him Who trusted them to him to witness what was false. And therewith he wished to make another point out also, viz. that he could not but have this love and care for them. For that they might not say "who art thou? and, from whence? that thou sayest that thou art anxious over a city so great, and most imperial," he shows that he must needs have this care, if at least the sort of service that was committed to him, was to declare the Gospel: for he that hath this put into his hands, must needs have continually upon his mind them that are to receive the word. And he shows another thing besides this by saying, "in my spirit;" that this service is much higher than either the Gentile or the Jewish. For the Gentile is both fleshly and in error, and the Jewish is true indeed, yet even this is fleshly. But that of the Church is the opposite of the Gentile, but more lofty than the Jewish by a great deal. For the mode of our service is not with sheep and oxen and smoke and fat, but by a spiritual soul, which Christ also shows in saying that "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." (John iv. 24.)

"In the Gospel of His Son." Having said above that it was the Father's Gospel, here he says it is the Son's. So indifferent is it to say the Father's or the Son's! For he had learnt from that blessed voice that the things of the Father are the Son's, and the things of the Son are the Father's. For "all Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine." (John xvii. 10.)

"That without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers." This is the part of genuine love, and he seems indeed to be saying some one thing, yet states four things even here. Both that he remembers, and that he does so continually, and that it is in his prayers, and that it is to ask great things for them.

Homily on Romans 2

Paul serves God with his whole heart and with a ready zeal.… He also presents a model of unceasing prayer.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul rightly says “with my spirit,” contrasting this with the carnal worship of the Jews in circumcision and sabbatarianism and other such sacrifices, none of which is either spiritual or true. Some have pointed out that the phrase is a simpler way of saying “with my mind and with my will.”

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

When Paul mentioned “his spirit,” he was not speaking about the person of the Spirit but about the grace of the Spirit which had been given to him to preach the gospel and by which, once he had been made worthy to be a coworker with God, he was enabled to carry out his work of mission.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Since Paul had not yet seen the Romans, yet wanted to say that he always remembers them, he calls as witness the One Who knows hearts. Notice the tender compassion of the apostle: he always remembers people whom he had not even seen. Where does he remember them? In his prayers, and moreover unceasingly. I "serve" God, that is, I am a slave "in my spirit," that is, not with fleshly service, but with spiritual service; for pagan worship is fleshly and false, and Jewish worship, though not false, is also fleshly, whereas Christian worship is true and spiritual, as the Lord also says to the Samaritan woman: "the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth" (Jn. 4:23). Since there are many kinds of service to God (for one serves and labors for God by managing only his own affairs, another by caring for strangers and providing for widows, as the fellow servants of Stephen did, and another by fulfilling the ministry of the word), the apostle says: "God, Whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of His Son." Above he attributed the gospel to the Father; but this is not strange, for what belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, and what belongs to the Son belongs to the Father. He says this, demonstrating that these cares are necessary for him; because the one who has been entrusted with the ministry of the gospel must care for all who have received the word.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says for God is my witness, he shows his affection for them from the prayer he offers for them. And because the business of prayer is carried on in secret in God's presence: when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father in secret (Matt 6:6), he calls on God to testify that he prays for them. First, therefore, he calls on the witness; second he shows on what point he calls the witness.

He calls on the witness when he says God is my witness under whose witness all things are done: I am judge and witness (Jer 29:23). Then, to show that he is not mistaken in calling on the just witness, he mentions how he is joined to him. First, in regard to service when he says whom I serve, namely, with the worship of latria: the Lord your God shall you adore and him alone shall you serve (Deut 6:13). Second, in regard to the way he served when he says, in my spirit. As if to say: not only in outward bodily service, but especially within, according to the spirit: God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Or in spirit, i.e., in spiritual observances, not in carnal, as the Jews: we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit (Phil 3:3). Third, in regard to the office in which he serves, namely, in the Gospel of his Son: separated unto the Gospel (Rom 1:1). It is the Gospel of the Son in three ways: first, because it is about him: I bring you good news of a great joy (Luke 2:10). Second, because it was preached by him as a special duty: I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose (Luke 4:43). Third, because it was enjoined by him: preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

But since, as Augustine says, it is the same to say for God is my witness and I swear by God, the Apostle seems to be acting against the Lord's command: I say to you, do not swear at all (Matt 5:34); above all, my brethren, do not swear (Jas 5:12). However, as Augustine also says, the meaning of Sacred Scripture is gathered from the actions of the saints. For it is the same Spirit who inspired the Sacred Scriptures: men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet 1:21) and who moves holy men to act: all who are led by the Spirit are sons of God (Rom 8:14).

Consequently, if Paul is found to swear, it shows that the Lord's word and that of the apostle James are not to be understood as indicating that an oath is absolutely unlawful, but that men should strive as far as possible not to use oaths as though they were something good and desirable of their very nature. And this on account of the danger involved in frequent swearing, namely, the possibility of perjury due to a slip of the tongue. Ecclesiastes says, do not accustom your mouth to oaths for many are tripped by them (Sir 23:9). Also because it seems contrary to the reverence we owe God for one to call God as witness without necessity. Hence: let not the naming of God be usual in your mouth (Sir 23:10). For this reason the Apostle never made an oath except in writing, when a man speaks with greater deliberation and caution.

Yet an oath is sometimes necessary to lend credence to a speaker, which in turn often benefits the hearer. Consequently, the Apostle makes an oath for the benefit of his hearer, for whom it was beneficial to believe, as though not seeking what was useful to himself but to the majority, namely, their salvation.

Hence, the Lord's statement that anything more than this, i.e., than a simple word, comes from evil (Matt 5:37) does not imply that it comes from evil in the one who swears, but in the one who demands the oath: it comes not from the evil of sin, except in the case where a person judges that the one from whom he demands the oath will swear falsely—in which case it is a serious sin, as Augustine says. Rather, it implies that it comes from the evil of punishment, i.e., our ignorance of whether something said to us is true.

It should be noted that there are two ways of making an oath: one is by a simple statement, as when it is said by God or God is my witness. This is the form the Apostle uses here. The other is by an imprecation, namely, when a person calls on God's witness in the form of some punishment to be inflicted on the speaker if he is lying: if I have requited evil with evil (Ps 7:3ff.). The Apostle also uses this form, as in 2 Corinthians: I call God to witness against my life (2 Cor 1:23).

Commentary on Romans

When Paul says that he is praying that somehow and at some point he may have a successful journey, so that in the will of God he might come to Rome, it must be remembered that since the apostle of God is dedicated to a holy work, that is, to the work of the gospel, he is waiting until by his prayers not only may he have a journey which is successful but also that it might be successful according to the will of God. How much more therefore ought we, whose work and worth are so much less important, to ask God for success on our journey when we have some business to attend to!Nevertheless, I think that the apostle also wants us to understand that the success of a journey does not always mean that the journey is according to God’s will. For Balaam had a successful journey when he went to Balak in order to curse the people of Israel, but this success was not due to God’s will. And many people have great success in worldly affairs and rejoice in their prosperity, but such prosperity is not of God’s will unless the purpose of our journey is to do his will, as the apostle says here.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Paul here indicates the point of his prayer for the Romans. He says that he asks God that he might come to Rome in order to encourage them with the will of God, whose gift he preaches. Then when he arrives and is present among them, if something has to be done, it may be done with the will of God. Therefore he prays that for whatever reason an opportunity may be given to him to come to the city, since he was already busy preaching to others, reckoning it a successful journey if he might come by God’s will, because the will of God has prepared the way. A successful journey is not to endure the labor of traveling in vain. He asks that God will fill them by calling them to his grace. He speaks with eagerness of mind, for he desires their response, knowing that it will be to their mutual advantage…. For the apostle’s fruit is richer if it wins many. For since the joy is greater if the powerful people of this world are converted to Christ, because they are so much more serious enemies, even more are converted thereby, and the fruit of the apostle is richer if he can win many. Thus by God’s will the opportunity was given that Paul was arrested and appealed to Caesar, and was sent for a different reason to the city of Rome, by the will of God and in fulfillment of the desire of his will. For when Paul was shipwrecked, God appeared to him and said: “Do not be afraid, Paul. For as you have borne witness to me at Jerusalem, so also will you do at Rome.” Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.

10–11

You see him painfully desiring to see them, and yet not enduring to see them contrary to what seemed good unto God, but having his longing mingled with the fear of God. For he loved them, and was eager to come to them. Yet he did not, because he loved them, desire to see them, contrary to what seemed good unto God. This is true love not as we love who err on both sides from the laws of love: for either we love no one, or if we ever do love, we love contrary to what seemeth good unto God, acting in both against the Divine law. And if these things be grievous when spoken of, they are more grievous when done. And how do we love contrary to what seems good to God? (you will say.) When we neglect Christ pining with hunger, and provide our children and friends and relations above their needs. Or rather what need to carry the subject further. For if any one will examine his own conscience, he will find that this takes place in many things. But such was not that blessed person, but he knew both how to love and to love as he ought, and as was fitting, and though exceeding all men in loving, he transgressed not the measures of love. See then two things thrive extremely in him, fear of God, and also longing towards the Romans. For to be praying continually, and not to desist when he obtained not, shows exceeding love. But while loving, thus to continue yielding to the will of God, shows intense reverence. In another place, however, having "thrice besought the Lord" (2 Cor. xii. 8), he not only did not receive, but on the contrary, when he did not receive, he was very thankful for not having been heard. So, in all things did he look to God. But here he received, though not when he asked, but after delay, and neither hereat was he discontented. And these things I mention that we may not repine at not being heard, or at being heard slowly. For we are not better than Paul, who confesses his thankfulness for both, and with good ground. For when he had once given himself up to the all-governing Hand, and put himself with as much subjection under it, as clay under the potter, he followed wheresoever God led. Having then said that he desired to see them, he mentioned also the cause of his desire; and what is it?

Homily on Romans 2

Paul does not find the way propitious unless the will of God, who knows all things, has directed him to a place where he might reap some fruit. For example, we read in Acts that, although he wanted to go to one place, he was directed to another.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul does not simply say that he wants to come to Rome but adds that he wants to come in God’s will. For when the salvation of so many people was at stake, St. Paul left nothing unclear but acknowledged God’s will in his prayer, for it is only by God’s permission that we are worthy to deal with material things and to make choices. Do we not commit everything we have to the divine will on which we depend?

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Now he adds why he remembers them. "To come," he says, "to you." Pay attention: as much as he loved them, as strongly as he desired to see them, he nevertheless did not wish to see them against the will of God. But we either love no one, or if we ever love someone, we do so against the will of God. That Paul unceasingly prayed to see them — this came from his strong love for them; and that he submitted to the beckoning of God — this was a sign of his great piety. Let us not grieve either, if we ever do not receive what we ask for in our prayers. We are not better than Paul, who three times asked the Lord for deliverance from the "thorn in the flesh," and did not receive what he desired (2 Cor. 12:7–9); for this was beneficial for him.

Commentary on Romans

Then he mentions the matter concerning which he calls God to witness when he says, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you, i.e., because in his prayers he always prayed for them on account of the general benefits that arose from their conversion: far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you (1 Sam 12:23).

The statement I make a commemoration of you can be understood in two ways: in one way according to the sense of a psalm: let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you (Ps 137:6); in another way I make a commemoration of you, i.e., I pray to God, who receives the prayers of the humble. Therefore, when the saints pray for certain people, they are somehow presented to his gaze, just as their other actions are. Hence, the woman said to Elijah: you have come to bring my sin to remembrance (1 Kgs 17:18), as though whatever is done against the just is in the memory and eyes of God.

That he claims to pray without ceasing is in agreement with what he tells the Thessalonians: pray constantly (1 Thess 5:7) and with Luke: they ought always to pray and not lose heart (Luke 18:1). This can be understood in three ways: in one way, as to the very act of praying, and then one is praying always or without ceasing, if he prays at the appointed times and hours: Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (Acts 3:1). In another way, as to the purpose of prayer which is that our mind rise up to God; and so a man prays as long as he directs his entire life to God: whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). Third, as to the cause; for when a person so acts that others pray for him, he seems to be praying, as in the case of those who give alms to the poor who pray for them: store up almsgiving in the heart of the poor (Eccl 29:12).

Therefore, I give thanks to my God for you because I regard your blessings as my own. This is obvious from the fact that I pray for you as I do for myself.

Then when he says, making request, he proves his affection by his desire to visit them. First, he mentions the desire; second, his intention of acting on this desire, at and I would not have you ignorant. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions a sign of this desire; second, the cause of his desire, at for I long.

The sign of the desire is the prayer he said for them, which implies such a desire. That the desire itself was intense is shown when he says making request for something very important which is beyond my merits: the poor use entreaties, but the rich answer roughly (Prov 18:23); for something intensely desired seems great to the one desiring. Second, it is an anxious desire, for he says if by any means. For if a person anxiously desires something, he seeks to get it by any means, easy or difficult: what then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I shall rejoice (Phil 1:18–19). Third, the desire was of long standing, for he says now at length, i.e., after long desiring it. For the just are concerned not for a short time but continuously: a friend loves at all times (Prov 17:17). Fourth, the desire was correct, because it was in keeping with God's will. Hence he adds if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, i.e., in keeping with his will, in terms of which I judge success: not as I will, but as you will (Matt 26:39).

Commentary on Romans

For, in fine, the agreement and harmony of the faith of both contribute to one end-salvation. We have in the apostle an unerring witness: "For I desire to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, in order that ye may be strengthened; that is, that I may be comforted in you, by the mutual faith of you and me." And further on again he adds, "The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith." The apostle, then, manifestly announces a twofold faith, or rather one which admits of growth and perfection; for the common faith lies beneath as a foundation.

The Stromata Book 5

"According to the grace," it is said, "given to me as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation. And another buildeth on it gold and silver, precious stones." Such is the gnostic superstructure on the foundation of faith in Christ Jesus. But "the stubble, and the wood, and the hay," are the additions of heresies. "But the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is." In allusion to the gnostic edifice also in the Epistle to the Romans, he says, "For I desire to see you, that I may impart unto you a spiritual gift, that ye may be established." It was impossible that gifts of this sort could be written without disguise.

The Stromata Book 5

First of all we must learn that it is an apostolic duty to seek fellowship with our brothers for no reason other than to share some spiritual gift with them if we can, or if we cannot, to receive some spiritual gift from them. Otherwise a desire to visit the beloved is hardly commendable. When Paul says “that I might impart to you some spiritual gift” he seems to imply that there is something which may be called a gift but which is not spiritual. For the gift of faith is undoubtedly spiritual, as is the gift of wisdom, of knowledge, of virginity. But when he speaks of marriage and of virginity, saying: “But each one has his own gift from God, some this one, some that,” he says that marriage is a gift, since it is written: “The woman was given to the man by God,” but this gift is not, strictly speaking, a spiritual gift. Many other things may also be called gifts of God, e.g., riches and bodily strength, physical beauty and earthly power. These things are also given by God, as Daniel says: “He removes kings and sets up kings,” but they are not spiritual gifts.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

This confirmation requires three persons: God, as helper; the apostle as minister and the people as receiver. Thus he now shows the will of his desire and what his wish for them is. For when he says: “that I might impart some spiritual gift to you,” he means that the Romans have followed carnal ideas, because in the name of Christ they have not followed what Christ taught but those things which had been handed down to them by the Jews. But he wants to come to them as quickly as possible in order to take them beyond that tradition and bestow on them a spiritual gift, that he might win them for God, making them partakers of spiritual grace, that they might be perfect in faith and behavior. From this we learn that he had not praised the content of their faith in the preceding verses but their readiness and devotion to Christ. For calling themselves Christians, they acted just as if they were under the law, as that had been handed down to them. For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weakness, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law.When he admonishes them in writing and draws them away from carnal thoughts, when he says that his presence is necessary in order to impart a spiritual grace to them, what does this mean? Isn’t what he writes also spiritual? He does not want his teaching to be applied in a way he does not intend, for that is what happens with heretics. So he desires to be present with them and pass on to them the gospel teaching in the precise sense in which he writes it, lest by the authority of his letter their error should be confirmed and not removed. If he were with them he would be able to convince them by power, if words failed to persuade them.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

For it was not merely as many now go travelling in a needless and profitless way that he also went, but for necessary and very urgent ends. And he does not tell them his meaning openly, but by way of hints, for he does not say that I may teach you, that I may instruct you, that I may fill up that which is wanting; but, "that I may impart;" showing, that it is not his own things which he is giving them, but that he was imparting to them what he had received. And here again he is unassuming, in saying "some," he means, a small one, and suited to my powers. And what may this small one be which thou art now going to impart? This it is, he says, "to the end that ye may be established." This then also cometh of grace, namely, the being unwavering and standing fast. But when you hear of grace, think not that the reward of resolve on our part is thereby cast aside; for he speaks of grace, not to disparage the labor of resolve on our part, but to undermine the haughtiness of an insolent spirit. Do not thou then, because that Paul hath called this a gift of grace, grow supine. For he knows how, in his great candor, to call even well doings, graces; because even in these we need much influence from above. But in saying, "to the end that ye may be established," he covertly shows that they needed much correction: for what he would say is this: Of a "long time I have both desired" and prayed to see you, for no other reason than that I may "stablish, strengthen, fix" you thoroughly in the word of God, so that ye be not continually wavering. But he does not express himself so (for he would have shocked them), but in another way he hints to them the same thing, though in a subdued tone. For when he says, "to the end that ye may be established," he makes this plain. Then since this also was very irksome, see how he softens it by the sequel. For that they may not say, are we wavering, and carried about? and need we speech of yours in order to stand fast? he anticipates and does away any gainsaying of the kind, by saying as follows.

Homily on Romans 2

Paul showed by his longing to see them that his desire was genuine, and by his eagerness to share, that the Romans’ spiritual gift was not something private but that he himself would be the one who would impart it.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

These words are full of humility.… Paul only wants to share what he has himself received. And because the great Peter was the first to have taught them, Paul adds that he merely wants to confirm them in the teaching which has already been given to them and to water the trees which have already been planted. Once again, his speech is full of modesty.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Others, he says, undertake long journeys for other purposes, but "I" do so in order to impart to you some gift. He says "some" out of modesty; for he did not say: I am going to teach you, but: to pass on what I have received, and moreover something small and proportionate to my abilities. "Gift," that is, everything that teachers proclaim for the benefit of their listeners; for although teaching is a good work, yet even our good works are gifts, because even for them help from above is needed.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says for I long to see you, he mentions the causes of the desire, and there are two. First, the welfare of those he would visit; hence, I long to see you: I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus (Phil 1:8), not for a trifling reason as in worldly friendship, but that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, not as its author but as its minister: one should regard us as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1); and this to strengthen you in the faith you have received: when you have been converted, strengthen your brethren (Luke 22:32).

Now a minister imparts grace in a number of ways, one of which is by the administration of the sacraments of grace: as each has received a gift, administer it to one another as good dispensers of God's grace (1 Pet 4:10) and by exhorting in sermons: let no evil talk come out of your mouth, but only such as is good for edifying . . . that it may impart grace to those who hear (Eph 4:29).

Commentary on Romans

Those on whom the apostle wishes to bestow spiritual grace for the encouragement of their faith, so that they will no longer be children, nor tossed about by every wind of doctrine—they are the truly blessed. Paul himself received comfort from seeing his work firm and stable, and they are comforted because they share in the apostolic grace.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Even Paul was not above the need of comfort. For right speech comforts the speaker as well. By this means Paul is teaching his followers not to be proud if they are called to teach. They are not giving what merely belongs to them when they teach. They come to realize that they not only minister to others’ needs but that they have needs themselves. For this is the fruit of the gospel. It is a blessing to those who preach it.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Paul says that he will be comforted with them insofar as they come to understand spiritual things. Even while he may rejoice in their faith, he nevertheless grieves insofar as they have not received the faith rightly. The apostle was the type to grieve for the faults of others as if they were his own. “And we are comforted by this,” he says, “by one and the same faith.” In this way the act of comforting is seamless. For it is by the unity of faith that they are brought to maturity in Christ. By this means the ministry of spiritual grace is given through the apostle’s preaching of the gospel and produces its own fruit.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

As if he said, Do not suspect that I spoke to accuse you. It was not with this feeling that I said what I did. But what may it be that I wished to say? Ye are undergoing many tribulations, being drenched on every side (by those who persecute you). I desired then to see you, that I might comfort you, or rather, not that I might comfort you only, but that I might myself receive comfort. See the wisdom of the teacher. He said, to the end that "ye may be strengthened;" he knew that what he had said would be heavy and irksome to the disciples. He says, "to the end that ye may be comforted." But this again is heavy, not indeed to such a degree as the former, still it is heavy. He then pares down what is galling in this also, smoothing his speech on every side, and rendering it easy of acceptance. For he does not say barely, "to be comforted," but, "to be comforted together with you;" nor was he content with this but he puts in a further lenitive, when he says, "by the mutual faith both of you and me." Oh how great was his humble-mindedness! He showed himself also to be in need of them, and not them only of him. And he puts the disciples in the position of teachers, not letting any superiority remain upon his own side, but pointing out their full equality. For the gain is mutual, he means, and I need the comfort from you, and you that from me. And how comes this to pass? "Through the mutual faith both of you and me." For as in the case of fire, if any one gather together many lights, it is a bright flame that he kindles, thus also does it naturally happen with the faithful. For when we be by ourselves, torn away from others, we are somehow in worse spirits. But when we see one another, and are entwined with the members of our own selves, great is the comfort we receive. You must not look to the present time, during which, by God's grace, both in city and in the desert itself, there be many hosts of believers, and all impiety hath been driven out; but consider, in that time, how great a good it was both for disciples to see their master, and for brethren who had come from another city to be seen of brethren. But that I may make what I am saying plainer, let me bring the matter to an example. For if it should even happen and come to pass (may it never do so!) that we had been carried away to the land of the Persians or Scythians or other barbarians, and had been scattered (torn asunder) by twos and threes in their cities, and were then suddenly to see any one of those here coming to us, reflect what a harvest of comfort we should reap of it! See ye not those too who are in the prisons, if they see any of their acquaintance, how they revive, and are quite fluttering with the pleasure? But if I compare those days with captivity and imprisonment, count it no wonder. For these suffered far harder things than those, scattered as they were, and driven about, and dwelling in the midst of famine and of wars, and tremblingly expecting daily death, and suspecting friends and kindred and relatives, and dwelling in the world as in a strange land, aye, and in far harder plight than they who live in another's country. This is why he says, "to the end that ye may be established and comforted with us by our mutual faith."

Homily on Romans 2

Paul wanted to receive as well as to give. The eagerness was on both sides.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Paul says this for fear of tripping up his hearers, who might not have known what to say to the prospect of sharing in some spiritual gift. For what could have been lacking in the teaching of Peter? Paul might be accused of criticizing Peter’s teaching … of thinking that he was a greater apostle than Peter, of claiming to be on closer terms with Christ and more beloved by Christ than Peter was. Fearing attacks of this kind, Paul first of all sets out the purpose of his coming, thereby sufficiently refuting the charge of presumption. Then he goes on to say not that he is giving them something but that he is going to share something with them, which is quite different.… Paul reassures them that he has no intention of preaching anything new to them but that he intends to confirm them in what they have already received from Peter.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

In a covert manner he gave them to understand that the Romans needed to be corrected in many things. But since even this was said too strongly (for the Romans could say: what are you saying? Are we really wavering, going in circles, and in need of you to become firm?), he adds: "that is, to be comforted together with you." The meaning is this: you endure many afflictions; therefore I have desired to see you, in order to comfort you somewhat, or rather, to receive comfort myself as well. The common good requires this. For the believers of that time, living as though in captivity, needed to visit one another, and thereby greatly comforted each other. Does this mean that Paul also needed their assistance? Not at all; for he is a pillar of the Church. On the contrary, so as not to speak harshly and, as we said, not to grieve them, he expressed it as though he himself needed their comfort. But if someone says that what comforted and gladdened the apostle in this case was the growth of faith among the Romans, such an interpretation will also be good: it is evident from the apostle's own words: "by the mutual faith both of you and me." In that case the thought will be as follows: I too, seeing your faith, will be comforted and will rejoice, and you will receive firmness from my faith, receiving comfort regarding that in which you may perhaps waver, out of faintheartedness. But this he does not say openly; rather, as has been said, he skillfully implies it.

Commentary on Romans

The second cause is the mutual consolation found in friendly communication. Hence he continues that I may be comforted together in you, i.e., me by seeing you and imparting a grace, and all of us by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine. For it is a source of mutual consolation to be one in the faith: but God who comforts the downcast comforted us by the coming of Titus: not only by his coming but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you (2 Cor 6:6).

Commentary on Romans

This sentence contains a rhetorical aside (hyperbaton), and the construction is defective.… It ought to be joined to the next verse by the words “to whom,” so that the phrase reads: “the rest of the Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, to whom I am under obligation.” … The whole thing would then read as follows: “Just as I have fruit among the other Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish, to whom I am under obligation, so also, as much as in me lies, am I eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome, for I am not ashamed to preach the gospel among any people, for the power of God is in it for salvation to all who believe, for the Jew first and for the Greek, for in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, which was previously covered by a veil in the law. Now it is revealed in those who come from the faith of the Old Testament to the faith of the new gospel.”So much for the order of the words; now we must examine the apostle’s meaning. When Paul says: “I have often intended to come to you,” he demonstrates the love which he had for the Romans. But when he adds: “but thus far have been prevented,” though indeed it may be thought that he was prevented by God, it is shown by this that it is God’s business where each of the apostles ought or ought not to go. It is by a particular dispensation that he appoints some to preach the Word of God and others not, as Paul himself says elsewhere: “When we tried to go into Bithynia, the Spirit of Christ prevented us.” … But if this phrase refers to the passage where he says that: “Satan hindered us,” he shows clearly that he is constantly struggling in prayer, so that by overcoming the hindrances of Satan he may be given a successful journey in the will of God, to see those who are at Rome. For he desires and does not cease to pray that he may obtain some fruit from them as he has from the other Gentiles. Thus like one who is acquisitive for many riches, Paul wants to amass some return from his many spiritual investments. He gathers fruit from the Greeks, fruit from the barbarians, fruit from the wise, fruit even from the foolish. For while to some he speaks wisdom as to those who are perfect, to others he says, as if speaking to foolish people, that he wants to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Some he teaches from the law and the prophets; others he persuades with signs and wonders.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

For the fruit of those who have believed the Word is the benefit to those who hear it. And the Lord says that he has sent the apostles in order to bear much fruit. Indeed, a few gleaners have harvested the entire church.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek CHURCH.65

Paul here indicates his plan and intention, which he does not doubt that they already know from those brothers who had come to Rome from Jerusalem or the neighboring cities for some reason, perhaps because of their religion, or from Aquila and Priscilla, who would have told the Romans of Paul’s intention. As he had often wanted to come but had been prevented, it came about that he wrote them a letter, lest they continue in their unwholesome habits for too long to be easily corrected. He calls them brothers not only because they had been born again but also because there were among them some who believed rightly, however few they may have been. Incidentally, this is why he says that they are “called to be saints.” What does it mean to be called to be saints? If they are already saints, how can they be called to be sanctified? This belongs to the foreknowledge of God, because God knows those who will be saints, for those who are already with him are saints and remain called forever. Yet Paul says that he has been prevented up to the time the epistle was written. He was being prevented by God, who could foresee that the Romans were still unprepared. So God sent the apostle to other cities more prepared to receive the truth.While acting in the name of the Savior, they were still prevented by their negligence from being as yet worthy to learn spiritual things. Paul did not say that he was prevented for no reason. He wanted them to know why he was delayed. He urged them to get ready, so that when they heard that a spiritual grace was to be given to them they would make themselves ready to receive it. Paul declares that he wants to come to them for their common good, so that they might receive the saving grace of the Spirit, having a reasoned profession of their faith, and that he might have some fruit of his ministry from God, having provoked them to the right faith by the example of the other Gentiles. For one who sees others responding in faith will be more eager to receive it.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Here is a compliance great as that of slaves, and a plain exhibition of his excellent temper! For, that he was let, he says, but why, he does not go on to say. For he does not pry into the command of his Master, but only obeys. And yet one might expect a person to start questions, as to why God hindered a city so conspicuous and great, and towards which the whole world was looking, from enjoying such a teacher, and that for so long a time. For he that had overcome the governing city, could easily go on to the subjects of it. But he that let alone the more royal one, and lay in wait about the dependents, had the main point left neglected. But none of these things does he busy himself with, but yields to the incomprehensibleness of Providence, thereby both showing the right tone of his soul, and instructing us all never to call God to account for what happens, even though what is done seem to trouble the minds of many. For the Master's part it is alone to enjoin, the servants' to obey. And this is why he says, that he was let, but not for what cause; for he means, even I do not know; ask not then of me the counsel or mind of God. For why, tell me, do you even seek to learn it? do you not know that all things are under His care, that He is wise, that He doeth nothing at a mere hazard, that He loveth thee more than they who begat thee, and goes exceeding far beyond a father's yearnings of affection to thee, and a mother's anxiousness. Seek then no more, and go not a step further; for this is sufficient consolation for thee: since even then it was well ordered for the Romans. And if thou knowest not the manner, take it not to heart: for this is a main feature of faith, even when in ignorance of the manner of the dispensation, to receive what is told us of His Providence.

Paul then having succeeded in what he was earnest about (and what was this? to show that it was not as slighting them that he did not come to them, but because, though greatly desiring it, he was hindered), and having divested himself of the accusation of remissness, and having persuaded them that he was not less desirous to see them than themselves, further shows his love to them by other things. For even when I was hindered he means, I did not stand aloof from the attempt, but I kept attempting always yet was always hindered, yet never did I stand aloof thus, without falling out with the will of God, still keeping my love. For by his purposing it to himself and not standing aloof from it, he showed his affection; but through his being hindered and yet not struggling against it, all his love to God. "That I might have some fruit among you also." Yet he had told them the cause of his longing before, and shown that it was becoming him; but still here also, he states it, clearing away all their suspicion. For since the city was conspicuous, and in the whole extent of sea and land had no equal to many even the mere desire of becoming acquainted with it became a reason for a journey to it; that they might not think anything of the sort about Paul, or suspect that, merely with a view to glory in claiming them to himself he desired to be present there, he repeatedly lays down the ground of his desire, and before he says, it was that "I may impart to you some spiritual gift," that I desired to see you; but here more clearly, "that I might have some fruit among you also even as among other Gentiles." The rulers he puts with the subjects, and after the countless triumphs and victories and the glory of the consuls, he puts them with the barbarians, and with good reason too. For where the nobility of faith is, there is none barbarian, none Grecian, none stranger, none citizen, but all mount up to one height of dignity.

Homily on Romans 2

The Romans would have learned of Paul’s plans through the brothers who were constantly coming and going. Prevented here means “busy,” because he was preaching in other provinces.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

There were many who sped to Rome for human reasons. Paul reveals his own chaste desire to go there and that his motive was a godly one. It appears that he longed after the Romans, perhaps because their faith had become an encouragement to all their subject peoples.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Paul here shows quite clearly that he wanted to go to Rome but that he had often been prevented. At the same time he wants to put them in fear, lest perhaps it was because of their unworthiness that he had been prevented from going to them.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Paul declares both his own plan and God’s overruling. For God’s grace was fully in control of his life.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Paul tells the Romans that it will benefit him to come to them, saying that the nations which received the gospel through him had clearly added to his own riches.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

He said above that he prayed to come to them, and some probably thought: if you are praying and desiring to give consolation and receive it, then what prevents you from coming? Therefore he added: "I was hindered" by God. Notice that the apostle does not inquire why he was hindered, but obeys the commands of the Master, teaching us also not to be curious about the things of God. So then, he proves that he did not fail to come to them out of negligence or contempt. I, he says, love you so greatly that although I was hindered, I by no means abandoned my intention; on the contrary, I constantly sought to come to you, because I love you exceedingly.

Since Rome was a glorious city, to which all flocked as to a city rich in wonders and magnificent, lest anyone think that Paul greatly desired to see the Romans for this same reason, he says: I greatly desired to come in order to have "some fruit." At the same time he also removes another suspicion, for someone might say: you encountered obstacles because you wanted to come against the will of God. He did not say: to instruct in the faith, to teach, but expresses himself modestly: "to have some fruit," just as above: "to impart to you some gift." At the same time he also restrains them, saying: "as among the other nations." Do not think, he says, that you are better than the other nations because you hold dominion: you all stand in the same rank.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says I would not have you ignorant, he mentions his intention to fulfill his plan lest it appear to be a vain desire. First, he mentions his plan; second, its cause, at that I might have some fruit; third, his eagerness, at so, as much as is in me. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions his plan; second, the obstacle, at and have been hindered hitherto.

He says, therefore, first: not only do I desire to see you, but I have decided to fulfill this desire, and I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you to prove my love not only in word or speech but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).

Second, he touches on the obstacle preventing him from having fulfilled that intention, saying, and have been hindered hitherto either by the devil, who endeavors to prevent the preaching from which man's salvation results: the north wind drives away rain (Prov 25:23), i.e., the doctrines of the preachers; or perhaps by God, according to whose nod the journeys and words of preachers are arranged: the clouds, i.e., preachers, scatter his lightning. They turn round and round by his guidance to accomplish all that he commands them (Job 37:11ff.). Hence in Acts it is recorded: they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia (Acts 16:6); and again: they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.

But the Apostle wants them to know both these things for their own benefit, so that seeing his affection, they might receive his words with more reverence, and recognizing their own conduct as the obstacle hitherto preventing his visit, they might amend their lives. So the words of Isaiah express a punishment for sin: I will command the clouds to rain no rain upon it (Isa 5:6).

Then he gives two reasons for his intention. The first is utility; hence he says that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you to whom I have preached. This can be taken in two ways: in one way as though he were saying: that I may reap some harvest among you by my preaching: you should go and bear fruit (John 15:16). In another way as though from their conversion a harvest would grow for him: he who reaps, receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life (John 4:36).

Commentary on Romans

We must now ask in what sense the apostle is under obligation to Greeks and barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish. What has he received from them that he should be indebted to them? I infer that he is a debtor to the different nations because by the grace of the Holy Spirit he has received the gift of being able to speak in the tongues of all nations, as he himself says: “I speak in tongues more than you all.” Given that a man receives the gift of tongues not for himself but for the benefit of those to whom he is called to preach, Paul incurs an obligation to all those whose language he has received as a gift from God. He has incurred an obligation to the wise in that he has received the wisdom hidden in the mystery, which he is to speak to the perfect and to the wise. But how is he indebted to the foolish? In that he has received the grace of patience and longsuffering, for it is the height of patience to be able to endure the furor of the foolish.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

We can see how in a short time this religion has grown up, making progress through the persecution and death of its adherents and through their endurance of the confiscation of their property and every kind of torture. And this is particularly miraculous, since its teachers are themselves neither very skillful nor very numerous. But in spite of everything, the Word is now preached in all the world, so that “Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish” now adopt the Christian faith.

On First Principles 4.1.2

Paul says that he is under obligation to those whom he names, because he was sent for the purpose of preaching to everyone. For this reason he states that they are all under obligation to believe in God the Creator, from whom and through whom are all things, for obligation and honor form part of the salvation of the believer. He wrote Greeks instead of Gentiles,” but this includes those who are called Romans, whether by birth or by adoption, and barbarians, who are those who are not Romans, whose race is inimical, and who are not Gentiles. He speaks of those who are wise, because they are learned in worldly sciences and are called wise in the world whether they are stargazers, geometers, mathematicians, grammarians, orators or musicians. Paul shows that none of these things is of any advantage, nor are these people truly wise, unless they believe in Christ. He calls them fools, because in their simplicity they lack knowledge of spiritual things. He testifies that he has been sent to preach to them all. But he says nothing about the Jews, because he is the teacher of the Gentiles. And this is why he says that he is under obligation, because he has accepted this teaching in order to pass it on, and in passing it on, to acquire it himself.

Commentary on Paul’s EPISTLES.5

Which also he said when writing to the Corinthians. And he says it, to ascribe the whole to God. (1 Cor. ix. 16.) And see him here also unassuming, for he does not say, that I may teach and instruct, but what? "that I might have some fruit." And not fruit, simply, but "some fruit." Again, depreciating his own share therein just as he had said above, "that I may impart some gift." And then to repress them too, as I said also before, he says, "even as among other Gentiles." For, I do not, because you are rich, and have the advantage of others, show less concern about the others. For it is not the rich that we are seeking, but the faithful. Where now are the wise of the Greeks, they that wear long beards and that are clad in open dress, and puff forth great words? All Greece and all barbarian lands has the tentmaker converted. But Plato, who is so cried up and carried about among them, coming a third time to Sicily with the bombast of those words of his, with his brilliant reputation, did not even get the better of a single king, but came off so wretchedly, as even to have lost his liberty. But this tentmaker ran over not Sicily alone or Italy, but the whole world; and while preaching too he desisted not from his art, but even then sewed skins, and superintended the workshop. And even this did not give offence to those who were born of consuls, and with very good reason, for it is not their trades and occupations, but falsehood and forged doctrines, which usually render teachers easy subjects of contempt. And for this reason, even Athenians still laugh at the former. But this man even barbarians attend to, and even foolish and ignorant men. For his preaching is set forth to all alike, it knows no distinction of rank, no preeminence of nation, no other thing of the sort; for faith alone does it require, and not reasonings. Wherefore it is most worthy of admiration, not only because it is profitable and saving, but that it is readily admissible and easy, and comprehensible to all: which is a main object in the Providence of God, who setteth forth His blessings to all in common.

For what He did in respect of the sun and the moon and the earth and the sea and other things, not giving the rich and the wise a greater share of the benefits of these, and a less to the poor, but setting forth the enjoyment of them to all alike, this also did He with regard to the preaching, and even in a much greater degree, by how much this is more indispensable than they. Wherefore Paul repeatedly says, "among all the Gentiles," to show that he in no respect favors them, but is fulfilling his Master's command, and sending them away to thanksgiving to the God of all.

Homily on Romans 2

14–15

And this is a matter of modesty. I, he says, am not bestowing some favor, but am fulfilling the command of the Master, and you should thank God, for He is the benefactor, while I am "obligated." He said the same thing to the Corinthians as well: "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:16). Therefore I am ready to preach to you as well, even if dangers are before my eyes. Such was his zeal for Christ!

Commentary on Romans

The other reason is the responsibility of his office: woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel (1 Cor 9:16). And because he had undertaken the general apostolate of the gentiles, he asserts that he is under obligation to all: although I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all (1 Cor 9:19).

And for this reason he sets out two diversities. One is along the lines of the diversity of nations, when he says, to Greeks and to barbarians. A person is called a barbarian, either because he is cut off from some people in one way or another in the sense of 1 Corinthians: if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a barbarian to the speaker and the speaker to me (1 Cor 13:11); or because he is cut off from the human race, inasmuch as he is not ruled by reason. Hence, they are properly called barbarians who are not directed by reason. This is implied in 2 Maccabees: do not act so fiercely and barbarously (2 Macc 15:2), i.e., inhumanly.

Now because the Greeks were the first to establish laws, he calls all the gentiles ruled by human laws Greeks. He makes no mention of the Jews who were ruled by divine laws, because he was not appointed apostle to the Jews but to the gentiles: we to the gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal 2:9).

Commentary on Romans

Paul understood himself to be sent to preach to all nations. Yet he was especially eager to impart the gospel of the grace of God to the Romans, the capital and seat of the empire. For it would be to the benefit and peace of the members if the head were not uncertain. Therefore he opts for the peace of the Romans, that Satan might not get too involved with them, and that he might have even richer fruits of his labor.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Oh, noble soul! having taken on him a task laden of so great dangers, a voyage across the sea, temptations, plottings, risings-for it was likely, that one who was going to address so great a city which was under the tyrannic sway of impiety, should undergo temptations thick as snowflakes; and it was in this way that he lost his life in this city, being cut off by the tyrant of it-yet still expecting to undergo so great troubles, for none of these did he become less energetic, but was in haste and was in travail and was ready-minded. Wherefore he says, "So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also."

Homily on Romans 2

Both reasons account for his readiness of will, so that he says so (as much as is in me), i.e., as far as I am concerned, I am ready, unless prevented, to preach the Gospel to you also who are at Rome: then all the people departed from the presence of Moses. And they came everyone whose heart stirred him (Exod 35:20).

Commentary on Romans

And so in the passage where he says: "I am not ashamed of the gospel (of Christ): for it is the power of god unto salvation to every one that beheveth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith," he undoubtedly ascribes both the gospel and salvation to Him whom (in accordance with our heretic's own distinction) I have called the just God, not the good one.

Against Marcion Book 5

Many attacks were made on the gospel when it was first preached, but Paul learned patience from the prophets who said: “Fear not the reproach of men, and be not dismayed at their revilings.” He knew that he should preach the gospel, “not in plausible words of human wisdom but in the power of the Spirit.” Therefore, defining what the gospel is, he proclaims: “It is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” When he says the power of God for salvation he implies that there is another power of God which is not for salvation but for damnation. It may be that it is because of these different powers that right and left are distinguished in God, so that the power for salvation would be identified with the right, and the power by which he condemns would be identified with the left.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Paul says that even if, in the very largest of cities, the preacher of the cross of Christ will be mocked by the ignorant, he is not to be ashamed. For if the Son of God bore the shame of the cross on our behalf, how could it not be out of place for us to be ashamed at the Lord’s suffering for us?

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

For power backed up the teaching of the apostles, so that if what they preached seemed incredible, signs and wonders performed by the apostles were a testimony that they should not be ashamed of what was said to them, because there was so much power in it. For there is no doubt that words must give way before power. Insofar as the Romans’ preaching was not backed up by signs, it was without the power of God. Paul is not ashamed of the gospel of God, but the implication is that some whom he is addressing may be ashamed of it. Perhaps what had been handed on to them had come into disrepute, because it had never been confirmed by any testimony and hence had become loosened from apostolic teaching. It is the power of God which calls persons to faith and which gives salvation to all who believe, because it remits sins and justifies, so that one who has been marked with the mystery of the cross cannot be bound by the second death. For the preaching of the cross of Christ is a sign that death has been expelled, as the apostle John says: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” Thus no believer is bound by death, since he has a sign that death has been conquered.“To the Jew first and also to the Greek.” This means to him who is of the race of Abraham and to him who is from the Gentiles. By Greek Paul means Gentile, and by Jew he means a descendant of Abraham. For these began to be called Jews only in the time of Judas Maccabaeus, who in a time of destruction resisted the sacrileges of the Gentiles and by trusting in God rallied the nation and defended his people. He was of the sons of Aaron. Therefore, although Paul puts the Jews first because of their ancestors, nevertheless he says that they must also accept the gift of the gospel in the same way as the Gentiles.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"What sayest thou, O, Paul? When it were fitting to say, that I boast, and am proud, and luxuriate in it; thou sayest not this, but what is less than this, that thou art "not ashamed," which is not what we usually say of things very glorious. What then is this which he says, and why does he thus speak? while yet he exults over it more than over heaven. At least, in writing to the Galatians, he said, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Gal. vi. 14.) How then comes he here to say, not that I even glory, but that "I am not ashamed?" The Romans were most anxiously eager about the things of the world, owing to their riches, their empire, their victories; and their kings they reckoned to be equal to the gods, and so they even called them. And for this cause too, they worshipped them with temples and with altars and with sacrifices. Since then they were thus puffed up, but Paul was going to preach Jesus, who was thought to be the carpenter's son, who was brought up in Judea, and that in the house of a mean woman, who had no body guards, who was not encircled in wealth, but even died as a culprit with robbers, and endured many other inglorious things; and it was likely that they were concealing themselves as not as yet knowing any of the unspeakable and great things: for this reason he says, "I am not ashamed," having still to teach them not to be ashamed. For he knew that if they succeeded in this, they would speedily go on and come to glorying also: and do you then, if you hear any one saying, Dost thou worship the Crucified? be not ashamed, and do not look down, but luxuriate in it, be bright-faced at it, and with the eyes of a free man, and with uplifted look, take up your confession; and if he say again, Dost thou worship the Crucified? say in reply to him, Yes! and not the adulterer, not the insulter of his father, not the murderer of his children (for such be all the gods they have), but Him who by the Cross stopped the mouths of devils, and did away with their countless juggleries. For the Cross is for our sakes, being the work of unspeakable Love towards man, the sign of His great concern for us. And in addition to what has been said, since they were puffed up with great pomposity of speech and with their cloak of external wisdom, I, he means to say, bidding an entire farewell to these reasonings, come to preach the Cross, and am not ashamed because of it: "for it is the power of God to salvation." For since there is a power of God to chastisement also (for when He chastised the Egyptians, He said, "This is My great power,") (Joel ii. 25) and a power to destruction, (for, "fear Him," He says, "that is able to destroy both body and soul in hell"), (Matt. x. 28) for this cause he says, it is not these that I come to bring, the powers of chastisement and punishment, but those of salvation. What then? Did not the Gospel tell of these things also, namely, the account of hell, and that of the outer darkness, and of the venomous worm? And yet we know of these from no other source than the Gospel. In what sense then does he say, "the power of God unto salvation?" Attend only to what follows. "To every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

For it is not to all absolutely, but to them that receive it. For though thou be a Grecian (i.e. Heathen), and even one that has run into every kind of vice, though a Scythian, though a barbarian, though a very brute, and full of all irrationality, and burdened with the weights of endless sins, no sooner hast thou received the word concerning the Cross, and been baptized, than thou hast blotted out all these; and why says he here, "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek?" What meaneth this difference? and yet he has often said, "Neither circumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision" (1 Cor. vii. 19. see Gal. v. 6 and vi. 15); how then doth he here discriminate, setting the Jew before the Greek? Now why is this? seeing that by being first he does not therefore receive any more of the grace (for the same gift is bestowed both on this person and that,) but the "first" is an honor in order of time only. For he has no such advantage as that of receiving greater righteousness, but is only honored in respect of his receiving it first. Since in the case of those that are enlightened (you that are initiated know what is meant,) all run to the baptism, yet not all at the same hour, but one first and another second. Yet the first doth not receive more than the second, nor he than the person after him, but all enjoy the same gifts. The "first" then here is an honor in word, not a superiority in grace. Then after saying, "unto salvation," he enhances the gift further, by showing that it stayeth not at the present point, but proceedeth farther.

Homily on Romans 2

This is subtly intended to censure the pagans who, although they do not hesitate to believe that their god Jupiter turned himself into irrational animals and inanimate gold all for the sake of his monstrous lust, think that we Christians should be ashamed to believe that our Lord was crucified in the flesh he assumed, in order to save his image.… At the same time Paul is also bearing in mind those heretics who think that the crucifixion is something unworthy of God, not realizing that nothing is more fitting for the Creator than to care for the salvation of his creatures, particularly as he could not suffer any loss to his own nature, which is not subject to corruption. There is no power greater than the one which overcame death and restored to man the life he had lost, even if this seems like weakness to an unbeliever.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Those who objected to the Christian gospel ridiculed it, mocking it because of its absurdity. For there is nothing more ridiculous than the word of someone who preaches that the Son of God was born and brought up by Jews, who rejects neither the cross nor death, who says moreover not only that Christ rose from the dead but that he ascended to heaven as Lord of all, that he will raise everyone else from the dead, and other things the apostles preached. The pagans mocked these things and ridiculed them, thinking that they would make the apostles shut up. Therefore St. Paul, feeling obliged to reply to this opinion of the apostles, began his teaching thus: “I am not ashamed of the gospel.”

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

The Romans were too attached to worldly glory, and Paul had to preach Jesus, who had endured every kind of dishonor, and the Romans could naturally be ashamed that such was the Savior. Therefore he says, "I am not ashamed," teaching them, among other things, not to be ashamed either, because he himself not only was not ashamed of the Crucified One, but even boasted and gloried in Him. Furthermore, since they were puffed up with wisdom, I, he says, go to preach the cross, and I am not ashamed of it; for it "is the power of God unto salvation." There is a power of God also for punishment; thus God demonstrated His power to the Egyptians by punishing them. There is also a power unto destruction, as it is said: "fear Him who is able to destroy in gehenna" (Mt. 10:28). So then, what I, Paul, preach contains not punishment, not destruction, but salvation. To whom? "To everyone who believes." For the gospel serves unto salvation not simply to all, but to those who receive it.

"First to the Jew, then also to the Greek." Here the word "first" means priority in order, not superiority in grace; for the Jew should not be preferred on the grounds that he receives more justification: he was only deemed worthy to receive it before others; which is why the word "first" expresses only priority in the order of speech.

Commentary on Romans

He rejects the obstacle to eagerness, namely shame, on account of which many fail to do what they would otherwise do readily; hence he says, I am not ashamed of the Gospel, which, indeed, seemed to be an occasion of shame for some in the presence of unbelievers, as he states in 1 Corinthians: we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the gentiles (1 Cor 1:23). But there is really no reason for shame, because he continues: but unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. Hence it is said: whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man will be ashamed (Luke 9:26). That is why the baptized are anointed with the chrism in the form of a cross on the forehead, where shame has its seat, namely, lest they be ashamed of the Gospel.

After eliciting the good will of the Roman believers, to whom he was writing, by showing his affection for them, the Apostle now begins to instruct them in matters pertinent to the teachings of the Gospel for which he had been set apart. First, he shows them the power of the Gospel grace; second, he urges them to perform the works of this grace, at I beseech you therefore (Rom 12:1). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth what he intends; second, he explains it, at for the wrath of God. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he sets forth the power of the Gospel grace; second, he explains it, at for the justice; third, he supports his explanation, at as it is written.

He says, therefore: I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because, although the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Cor 1:18). For it is the power of God. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the power of God is manifested in the Gospel: he has shown the people the power of his works (Ps 111:6); in another way, that the Gospel itself contains in itself God's power, in the sense of the Psalm: he will give to his voice a voice of power (Ps 67:34).

In regard to this power three things can be considered. First, to what it extends. This is answered when he says, unto salvation: receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your soul (Jas 1:21). This happens in three ways: first, insofar as sins are forgiven by the word of the Gospel: you are made clean by the word I have spoken to you (John 15:3). Second, insofar as a man obtains sanctifying grace through the Gospel: sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17). Third, insofar as it leads to eternal life: you have the words of eternal life (John 6:68).

The second consideration is how the Gospel confers salvation, namely, through faith, which is indicated when he says, to everyone who believes. This happens in three ways. First, through preaching: preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:15). Second, by confessing the faith: with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom 10:10). Third, by the Scripture; hence even the written words of the Gospel have a saving power, as Barnabas cured the sick by placing the Gospel upon them. Nonetheless, one must beware the superstitions of characters, because this is superstitious. Hence in Ezekiel, those were saved who had written on their foreheads a Tau (Ezek 9:6), which is the sign of the cross.

The third thing to be considered is the people for whom the Gospel works salvation, namely, both the Jews and the gentiles. For God is God not of the Jews only, but also of the gentiles, as he says below (Rom 3:19); hence he adds to the Jew first and also to the Greek. By Greek is meant all the gentiles, because the gentiles' wisdom arose from the Greeks. But since he says below there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (Rom 10:12), why does he say here that the Jew is first? The answer is that there is no distinction as far as the goal of salvation to be obtained is concerned, for both obtain an equal reward, just as in the vineyard the early and the late workers received one coin (Matt 20:10). But in the order of salvation the Jews are first, because the promises were made to them (Rom 3:2), whereas the gentiles were included in their grace like a branch grafted into a cultivated olive tree (Rom 11:24). Also, our savior was born from the Jews: salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22).

Commentary on Romans

For by His advent He Himself fulfilled all things, and does still fulfil in the Church the new covenant foretold by the law, onwards to the consummation of all things. To this effect also Paul, His apostle, says in the Epistle to the Romans, "But now, without the law, has the righteousness of God been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; for the just shall live by faith." But this fact, that the just shall live by faith, had been previously announced by the prophets.

Against Heresies Book 4

And if to Abraham on his believing it was counted for righteousness; and if we are the seed of Abraham, then we must also believe through hearing. For we are Israelites, who are convinced not by signs, but by hearing. Wherefore it is said, "Rejoice, O barren, that barest not; break forth and cry, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than of her who hath an husband." ...And if the same mansions are promised by prophecy to us and to the patriarchs, the God of both the covenants is shown to be one. Accordingly it is added more clearly, "Thou hast inherited the covenant of Israel," speaking to those called from among the nations that were once barren, being formerly destitute of this husband, who is the Word,-desolate formerly,-of the bridegroom. "Now the just shall live by faith," which is according to the covenant and the commandments; since these, which are two in name and time, given in accordance with the [divine] economy-being in power one-the old and the new, are dispensed through the Son by one God. As the apostle also says in the Epistle to the Romans, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith," teaching the one salvation which from prophecy to the Gospel is perfected by one and the same Lord.

The Stromata Book 2

Where three people are gathered together, there is a church, even if all three are laypersons. For each individual lives by his own faith.

On Exhortation to Chastity 7

But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says.

On Exhortation to Chastity

These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? who shall bring the conflagration and just judgment upon all who have refused to believe on Him. For the Lord says, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." "And there shall not a hair of your head perish." "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together." Now the fall took place in paradise; for Adam fell there. And He says again, "Then shall the Son of man send His angels, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds of heaven." And David also, in announcing prophetically the judgment and coming of the Lord, says, "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His circuit unto the end of the heaven: and there is no one hid from the heat thereof." By the heat he means the conflagration. And Esaias speaks thus: "Come, my people, enter thou into thy chamber, (and) shut thy door: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation of the Lord be overpast." And Paul in like manner: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth of God in unrighteousness."

Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel in that no one is excluded from salvation, whether he be a Jew, a Greek or a barbarian. For the Savior says to everyone equally: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden.” Concerning “through faith for faith,” we have already said that the first people were in the faith, because they believed God and Moses his servant, from which faith they have now gone over to the faith of the gospel. The quotation from Habakkuk means either that the one who lives in the law will also believe the gospel or that the one who believes the gospel will also believe the law and the prophets. For one of these does not have the fullness of life without the other.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

If you are a just man and live by faith, if you truly believe in God, why do you, who are destined to be with Christ and secure in the promise of the Lord, not rejoice that you are called to Christ and be glad that you are free from the devil?

Treatise VII On the Mortality 3

The righteousness of God is revealed in … the believer. Paul says that the revelation of righteousness is the approbation of those who do right. Thus he is able to say likewise that wrath is revealed toward those who do the opposite. The Jew has been brought from the faith of the appointed law to the faith which is through Christ and the Gentile from the faith of nature to the same faith in Jesus Christ.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

In place of righteousness by works, which is neither sincere nor life-giving, Paul praised life through faith. The prophet said: “through faith for faith.” “If you had believed in Moses,” said Jesus, “you would have believed in me also.”

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Paul says this because the righteousness of God is revealed in the one who believes, whether Jew or Greek. He calls it “the righteousness of God” because God freely justifies the ungodly by faith, without the works of the law, just as he says elsewhere: “That I may be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.” He says that this same righteousness is revealed in the gospel when God grants faith to man, through which he may be justified.The truth and righteousness of God are revealed in this, when a man believes and confesses. The righteousness is of God because what he promised, he gave. Therefore, whoever believes that he has received what God promised through his prophets proves that God is just and is a witness of his righteousness. “Through faith for faith.” What does this mean, except that the faith of God is in him because he promised, and the faith of man is in him because he believes the one who promises, so that through the faith of the God who promises the righteousness of God might be revealed in the faith of the man who believes? For to the believer God appears to be just, but to the unbeliever he appears to be unjust. Anyone who does not believe that God has given what he promised denies that God is truthful. This is said against the Jews, who deny that Christ is the one whom God promised. “As it is written: ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” Paul now moves over to the example of the prophet Habakkuk in order to declare that in the past it was revealed that a just man lives by faith and not by the law, i.e., that a man is not justified before God by the law but by faith.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

It is right for you, my son, to have begun with the law and to have been confirmed in the gospel, from faith to faith, as it is written: “The just shall live by faith.”

Letter 77.15

But he who hath become just shall live, not for the present life only, but for that which is to come. And he hints not only this, but also another thing along with this, namely, the brightness and gloriousness of such a life. For since it is possible to be saved, yet not without shame (as many are saved of those, who by the royal humanity are released from punishment), that no one may suspect this upon hearing of safety, he adds also righteousness; and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, "believing." Then since his statement did not seem credible, if the adulterer and effeminate person, and robber of graves, and magician, is not only to be suddenly freed from punishment but to become just, and just too with the highest righteousness; he confirms his assertion from the Old Testament. And first with a short sentence, he lays open a vast sea of histories to one who has a capacity for seeing them. For after having said, "from faith to faith." he sends the hearer back to the dispensations of God, which took place thus in the Old Testament, which, when writing to the Hebrews, he explains with his usual great wisdom, showing that both the just and the sinners were justified in that way even then, wherefore also he made mention both of the harlot and of Abraham. But then here, after having just hinted at it (for he was running on to another and a pressing subject), he again confirms what he had said from the Prophets, bringing in Habakkuk before them, crying, and saying, that it is not in the nature of things for him who is to live, to live otherwise save by faith; for "the just," he says, "shall live by faith" (Hab. ii. 4), speaking about the life to come. For since what God giveth transcends reasoning entirely, it is but reason that we need faith. But the man that thinks meanly of it, and is contemptuous and vainglorious, will not effect anything at all. Let heretics hearken to the voice of the Spirit, for such is the nature of reasonings. They are like some labyrinth or puzzles which have no end to them anywhere, and do not let the reason stand upon the rock, and have their very origin in vanity. For being ashamed to allow of faith, and to seem ignorant of heavenly things, they involve themselves in the dust-cloud of countless reasonings. Then oh miserable and painful man, fit object for endless tears, should any one ask thee, how the heaven was made, and how the earth,-and why do I say the heaven and the earth? how thou wert thyself born, how nourished, and how thou grewest, art thou then not ashamed of thine ignorance? But if anything be said about the Only-begotten, dost thou thrust thyself through shame into a pit of destruction, thinking that it is unworthy of thee not to know everything? And yet disputatiousness is an unworthy thing, and so is ill-timed curiosity. And why do I speak of doctrines? for even from the corruption in our present life we have escaped by no other means than through the faith. Thus shone also all those aforetime, thus Abraham, thus Isaac, thus Jacob, thus too the harlot was saved, the one in the Old Testament, and likewise the one in the New. For, "by faith," he says, "the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not when she had received the spies." (Heb. xi. 31.) For if she had said to herself, "and how can they that are captives and exiles, and refugees, and live the life of vagabond tribes, get the better of us who have a city, and walls, and towers?" she would have destroyed both herself and them. Which also the forefathers of those who were then saved did suffer. For when, upon the sight of men great and tall, they questioned the manner of victory, they perished, without battle or array, all of them. Seest thou what a pit is that of unbelief! what a wall that of faith! For the one carried down endless thousands, the other not only saved a harlot, but made her the patroness of so numerous a people!

Homily on Romans 2

What is now the church, prior to the appearance of what will be, lives in toils and afflictions, and in her the just live by faith.

He who claims to be just without faith is a liar. Sermons for the Feast of the Nativity, Homily

This righteousness is the grace of the New Testament, by which the faithful are just as long as they live by faith, until by the perfection of righteousness they are brought to the face-to-face vision, as they are also brought to the immortality of the body itself, by the perfection of salvation.

The Spirit and the Letter 18.11

The righteousness of God is not revealed to everyone but only to those with the eyes of faith. For the holy apostle teaches us that God foresaw this for us from the beginning and predicted it through the prophets, and even before the prophets, had it hidden in his secret will.Paul quoted Habakkuk for the benefit of the Jews, because he wanted to teach them not to cling to the provisions of the law but to follow the prophets. For many centuries before they had predicted that one day there would be salvation by faith alone. Then departing from his admonition to the Jews, he accuses everyone else of having brazenly departed from the natural law which the Creator had placed in them. For when God made them, he did not allow them to live like beasts but honored them with reason and gave them the ability to know the difference between good and evil. Those who lived righteous lives before the time of Moses confirm this by their witness.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

What is the overall meaning of the above? It is that our gospel is very great and truly marvelous if you pay careful attention to its power. For through faith in Christ all are saved, those whom the natural law has enlightened and those who follow the written law which was added to it. For when someone is informed about the resurrection from the dead, he learns that he too may share in this by obeying the gospel according to the design of the Savior. And this, says Paul, God had in ancient times announced through Habakkuk the prophet when he said: “The righteous shall live through faith.”

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Having said that the gospel is "unto salvation," he explains how it is "unto salvation." The righteousness of God, he says, saves us, not our own righteousness. For what righteousness can we have, who are cursed in our works and corrupt? But God justified us not by works, but by faith, which must grow into greater and greater faith, for it is not enough to believe at first, but we must ascend from initial faith into most perfect faith, that is, into a state that is unshakeable and firm, just as the apostles said to the Lord: "Increase our faith" (Lk. 17:5). And what was said, that is, that we have been justified by the righteousness of God, he confirms with words from the prophecy of Habakkuk: "the righteous," he says, "shall live by faith." Since what has been given to us by God surpasses all human thoughts, faith is justly needed for us; for if we were to begin investigating the works of God, we would lose everything.

Commentary on Romans

Then he explains how the Gospel works unto salvation when he says, for the justice of God is revealed therein from faith unto faith. This can be understood in two ways.

In one way it can refer to the justice by which God is just: the Lord is just and has loved justice (Ps 11:7). Taken this way, the sense is that the justice of God, by which he is just in keeping his promises, is revealed in him, namely, in the man who believes the Gospel, because he believes that God has fulfilled what he promised about sending the Christ. And this is from faith, namely, of God who promised: the Lord is faithful in all his words (Ps 145:13); unto faith, namely of the man who believes.

Or it can refer to the justice of God by which God makes men just. For the justice of men is that by which men presume to make themselves just by their own efforts: not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own justice, they did not submit to the justice of God (Rom 10:3). This justice is revealed in the Gospel inasmuch as men are justified by faith in the Gospel in every age. Hence he adds, from faith unto faith, i.e., proceeding from faith in the Old Testament to faith in the New, because in both cases men are made just and are saved by faith in Christ, since they believed in his coming with the same faith as we believe that he has come. Therefore, it is stated in 2 Corinthians: we have the same type of faith as he had who wrote: I believed, and so I spoke (2 Cor 4:13).

Or it can mean from faith of the preachers to the faith of the hearers: how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? (Rom 10:14). Or from faith in one article, unto faith in another, because justification requires belief in all the articles: blessed is he who reads and hears the words of this prophecy (Rev 1:3). It can be taken as from present faith and unto future faith, i.e., into the full vision of God, which is called faith by reason of the certainty and solidity of the knowledge, while this present faith is called faith by reason of the knowledge of the Gospel: for now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12).

He supports this explanation when he adds as it is written: my just man lives by faith. This follows the Septuagint text, for in our text, which follows the Hebrew truth, it says the just man lives by his faith. It says my just man, i.e., justified by me and reputed just before me, as is said below, but if Abraham was justified by works of the law, he has glory, but not before God. For what do the Scriptures say? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice (Rom 4:2). Hence it adds lives by faith, i.e., by the life of grace: the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20).

Four things must be considered here concerning faith. First, what faith is. For it involves willed assent, with certitude, to that which is not seen: because, as Augustine says, no one believes unless he is willing. According to this definition a believer differs from a doubter, who assents to neither side; he also differs from one holding an opinion, who assents to one side not with certitude but with fear concerning the other side; he differs also from one who knows scientifically, who through certitude assents by the necessity of reason. Accordingly, faith is midway between scientific knowledge and opinion.

The second consideration is whether faith is a virtue. Clearly it is not, if faith is taken for that which is believed, as in the statement: this is the Catholic faith, that we venerate one God in Trinity. But if it is taken for the habit by which we believe, then sometimes it is a virtue and sometimes not. For a virtue is a principle of a perfect act. But an act depending on two principles cannot be perfect, if either of the principles lacks its perfection, just as riding cannot be perfect, if the horse does not run well or the rider does not know how to guide the horse. Now the act of faith, which is to believe, depends on the intellect and on the will moving the intellect to assent. Hence, the act of faith will be perfect, if the will is perfected by the habit of charity and the intellect by the habit of faith, but not if the habit of charity is lacking. Consequently, faith formed by charity is a virtue; but not unformed faith.

The third point to be considered is that the same numerical habit of faith which was not formed by charity becomes a virtue with the advent of charity, because, since charity is outside the essence of faith, the substance of faith is not changed by the coming or going of charity.

Fourth, we must consider that just as the body lives its natural life through the soul, so the soul lives the life of grace through God. First of all, God dwells in the soul through faith: that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph 3:17); but this indwelling is not perfect, unless faith is formed by charity, which by the bond of perfection unites us to God (Col 3:14). Consequently, the phrase lives by faith must be understood of formed faith.

Commentary on Romans

And as then the condemnation of sinners extended to others who approved of them, and joined in their society; so also is it the case at present, that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." And as the wrath of God did then descend upon the unrighteous, here also does the apostle likewise say: "For the wrath of God shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those men who hold back the truth in unrighteousness."

Against Heresies Book 4

Whose wrath? The Creator’s, of course! The truth therefore belongs to the Creator, as does the wrath, which has to be revealed in order to vindicate the truth.

Against Marcion 5.13

When, again, he declares that "the wrath (of God) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness," (I ask) the wrath of what God? Of the Creator certainly.

Against Marcion Book 5

The wrath, therefore, which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of wrath; so that this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that previous one wherein the judgment is declared to be the Creator's, cannot possibly be ascribed to another god who is not a judge, and is incapable of wrath.

Against Marcion Book 5

Here the wrath of God is said to be revealed not in part but against all ungodliness and wickedness; yet not against all men but only against those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.… Ungodliness refers to sin against God; wickedness, to sin against human beings. Those who suppress the truth by their wickedness sin against both God and humanity. Humans know this truth by the natural and God-given powers of the mind. Enough wisdom is given to them so that they might know what is known of God, i.e., what may be known of God, apprehending the invisible things from those things which can be seen, using the powers of human thought. For this reason God’s judgment is just on those who, before the coming of Christ, could have known God but instead turned away from him and fell into worshiping images of men and animals. To sum up: to worship anything at all apart from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the offense of ungodliness.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

This means that although the visible creation was sufficient to reveal the invisible God, they nevertheless abandoned God and deified creatures instead, “suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness.”

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Just as the righteousness of God is revealed in the one who believes, as I recalled earlier, so ungodliness and unrighteousness are revealed in the one who does not believe. From the very structure of heaven it appears that God is angry with them. For this reason he made the stars so beautiful that from them he might be known as their great and wonderful Creator, and alone be adored. It is written in the eighteenth psalm: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork,” and so the human race is made guilty by the natural law. For men could learn this by the law of nature, with the structure of the world bearing witness that God its author ought alone to be loved, which Moses put down in writing. But they became ungodly, not worshiping the Creator, and so unrighteousness appeared in them, in that seeing they suppressed the truth, not confessing the one God.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Observe the discretion of Paul, how after encouraging by the gentler things, he turns his discourse to the more fearful. For after saying that the Gospel is the cause of salvation and of life, that it is the power of God, that it gendereth salvation and righteousness, he mentions what might well make them fear that were heedless of it. For since in general most men are not drawn so much by the promise of what is good as by the fear of what is painful, he draws them on both sides. For this cause too did God not only promise a kingdom, but also threaten hell. And the Prophets spake thus with the Jews, ever intermingling the evil with the good. For this cause too Paul thus varies his discourse, yet not any how, but he sets first the good things, and after the evil, to show that the former came of the guiding purpose of God, but the latter of the wickedness of the backsliding. And in this way the prophet puts the good first, saying, "If ye be willing and will obey me, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye be not willing and will not obey me, the sword shall devour you." (Is. i. 19, 20.) So here too does Paul conduct his discourse. But observe him; Christ, he means, came to bring forgiveness, righteousness, life, yet not in any way, but by the Cross, which is greatest too and wonderful, that He not only gave such things, but that He also suffered such things. If then ye insolently scorn the gifts, then will the penalties await you, And see how he raises his language, "For the wrath of God," he says, "is revealed from heaven." Whence does this appear? If it be a believer who says this, we will tell him of the declarations of Christ, but if the unbeliever and the Grecian, him Paul silences, by what he says presently of the judgment of God, bringing an uncontrovertible demonstration from the things which were done by them. And this too is by far the most striking point in him, how he exhibits those who speak against the truth, as themselves bearing witness by the things which they do daily, and say, to the doctrines of the truth. But of this in the sequel: but for the present, let us keep to what is set before us. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven." And indeed even here this often takes place in famines and pestilences and wars: for each individually and all in common are punished. What will be the new thing then? That the chastisement will be greater, and common to all, and not by the same rules. For now what takes place is for correction; but then for vengeance. And this also St. Paul showed, when he said, "We are chastened now, that we should not be condemned with the world." (1 Cor. xi. 32.) And now indeed to many such things usually seem to come not of the wrath from above, but of the malice of man. But then the punishment from God shall be manifest, when the Judge, sitting upon the fearful tribunal, shall command some to be dragged to the furnaces, and some to the outer darkness, and some to other inexorable and intolerable punishments. And why is it that he does not speak as plainly as this, the Son of God is coming with ten thousand angels, and will call each man to account, but says, that "the wrath of God is revealed?" His hearers were as yet novices, and therefore he draws them first by things quite allowed by them. And besides what is here mentioned, he also seems to me to be aiming against the Greeks. And this is why he makes his beginning from this, but afterwards he introduces the subject of Christ's judgment.

"Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Here he showeth that the ways of ungodliness are many, and that of truth, one. For error is a thing various and multiform and compound, but the truth is one. And after speaking of doctrines he speaks of life, mentioning the unrighteousness of men. For there be various kinds of unrighteousness also. One is in money affairs, as when any one deals unrighteously by his neighbor in these; and another in regard to women, when a man leaves his own wife, and breaks in upon the marriage of another. For St. Paul calls this also defrauding, saying thus, "That no man go beyond or defraud his brother in the matter." (1 Thess. iv. 6.) Others again injure not the wife or property, but the reputation of their neighbor, and this too is unrighteousness. For "a good name is better than great riches." (Prov. xxii. 1.) But some say that this also is said of Paul about doctrines. Still there is nothing to prevent its having been said of both. But what it is "to hold the truth in unrighteousness," learn from the sequel.

Homily on Romans 3

Since the forthcoming punishment of the ungodly and unrighteous has already been decreed, it is essential to walk in the righteousness of faith, in order to avoid the evils to come. Paul rightly said that the wrath of God is being revealed … in this present age, when God restrains himself and does not render the full punishment, so as not to remove the opportunity to repent, with the result that either they will turn around and be saved or else they will turn away and have no excuse.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Those whom the apostle reproved knew but did not give thanks and, claiming to be wise, actually became fools and fell into idolatry. For when the apostle spoke to the Athenians, he showed plainly that the wise among the Gentiles had discovered the Creator.… He condemned the unbelief of the Gentiles first, in order to show that they could obtain grace if they converted. For it would be unjust for them to suffer a penalty for unbelief but not obtain the reward of faith.

On Romans 3

For nature taught them both that God is the Creator of all things and also that they should flee unrighteousness and embrace righteousness. But even when teachers were given to them, they did not live up to this. So God threatened them with future punishment.… This punishment is called the wrath of God, not because God punishes people for any emotional reason but in order to stun those who rebel against him.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Generally speaking there are two main types of sin—discord with God and discord with one’s neighbor. Paul mentions them both, putting discord with God first because it is the greater sin, and calling it “ungodliness.” He then mentions the second kind of discord, the one with one’s neighbor, calling it “wickedness.” He even states that our entire race has rightly come under judgment, saying that they have suppressed the truth in wickedness. Nor can they claim to be ignorant, for knowing the truth, they perverted it.… And outlining their sins, Paul lists the one against God first, saying that they had clear and plain knowledge about God because God had revealed himself to them.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Having begun with what brings greater "benefits," and having said that the righteousness of God is revealed through the Gospel, he now uses expressions that can instill fear, for he knew that the greater part of people are drawn to virtue by fear. So too the Lord Jesus, when speaking of the Kingdom, also speaks of Gehenna. And the prophets first offer promises, and then threats. For the first is a matter of God's antecedent will, while the latter is a consequence of our negligence. Pay attention to the order of the speech: Christ came, he says, and brought you justification and forgiveness; if you do not accept them, then the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, evidently at the time of the Second Coming. Even now we experience the wrath of God, but for correction, whereas then it will be only for punishment. And now we often think we see injury coming from people, but then it will be clear that the punishment is from God upon all ungodliness. True worship and piety are one, but ungodliness is manifold, which is why he said "all ungodliness," since it has many paths, "and unrighteousness of men." Ungodliness and unrighteousness are not the same thing. The former is against God, while the latter is against people, and moreover the first is a sin of contemplation, while the latter is a sin of action. Unrighteousness also has many paths, for one wrongs a neighbor either in property, or in wife, or in honor. However, some maintain that by unrighteousness Paul also means doctrine. And as for what "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" means, listen. The truth, or knowledge of God, was implanted in people at their very birth; but this truth and knowledge the pagans suppressed by unrighteousness, that is, they insulted it by acting contrary to what had been communicated to them, ascribing the glory of God to idols. Imagine a man who received money to spend for the glory of the king. If he had spent it on thieves and harlots, he would rightly be called an offender against the king's glory. So too the pagans suppressed by unrighteousness, that is, they concealed and unjustly obscured the glory of God and the knowledge of Him, using them not as they ought to have been used.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says the wrath of God is revealed, he proves what he had said, namely, that the power of the Gospel's grace exists for all men unto salvation. First, he shows that it is necessary for salvation; second, that it is efficacious or sufficient, at being justified therefore by faith (Rom 5:1). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that the power of the Gospel grace was necessary for the gentiles' salvation, because the wisdom in which they trusted could not save them; second, he shows that it was necessary for the Jews, because circumcision, the law, and other things in which they trusted, did not bring them salvation, at wherefore you are inexcusable (Rom 2:1). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states his intention; second, he manifests it, at because that which is known of God.

And he sets forth three things. First, punishment, when he says: rightly do I say that the justice of God is revealed in it, for in it the wrath of God is revealed, i.e., God's vengeance, which is called wrath in comparison to angry men who seek vengeance exteriorly; although God takes vengeance with a tranquil spirit: you, our Lord, judge with tranquility (Wis 12:18). Of this anger of God it is said: he that does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him (John 3:36). This is stated, because some philosophers said that punishments for sin are not from God, contrary to what is said in the Psalm: he that chastises the nations, does he not chastise us? (Ps 94:19).

That is why he adds from heaven, because they believed that God's providence was so occupied with the heavens that it did not extend to earthly affairs: he walks about the poles of heaven, nor does he consider our things (Job 22:14). But as it says in the Psalm: from heaven the Lord looked at the earth (Ps 102:19). Or he is said to prove their iniquity from heaven, because they should have recognized the power of the Creator above all from the greatness of the heavens: the heavens will reveal his iniquity (Job 20:27). Or from heaven he will come to judge: Jesus will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven (Acts 1:11).

Second, he mentions the sin for which the punishment is inflicted. First, the sin against God, when he says: against all ungodliness. For just as godliness refers to worship paid to God, as to the highest parent, so ungodliness is a sin against divine worship: the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself (Ezek 18:20). Second, he sets forth the sin committed against man, when he says and injustice. For justice is that through which men come together and engage one another reasonably: your justice will help a son of man (Job 35:8).

Third, he sets out the knowledge they had of him, when he says: of those men who detain the truth of God, i.e., true knowledge of God, in injustice. For true knowledge of God, by its very nature, leads men to good, but it is bound, as though held captive, by a love of wickedness through which, as the Psalm says, truths have vanished from among the sons of men (Ps 11:1).

Commentary on Romans

When we merely say that we are bad, the "wrath" of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God's goodness. To keep ever before us the insight derived from such a moment as I have been describing, to learn to detect the same real inexcusable corruption under more and more of its complex disguises, is therefore indispensable to a real understanding of the Christian faith.

The Problem of Pain, Chapter 4: Human Wickedness

Paul says that what can be known about God is plain to them, thereby revealing that there is something about God which can be known, and something about him which is unknown. Therefore he says that the wrath of God is revealed on those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. If something is revealed it must be brought to our notice from something we have not yet noticed. It appears here that the wrath of God is revealed not to those who are ignorant of the truth but to those who already know the truth, however imperfectly.The apostle also shows that those things which have come to the wise of this world concerning the knowledge of the truth, have come to them by divine revelation. But when they chase after vain glory, or are praised for ancient errors, or are silenced by fear of rulers, they become judges of their own damnation. The truth, which they had learned by divine revelation, is either hidden from them by their loss of freedom or else is denied by their wicked behavior. So also the wrath of God may sometimes appear in the form of that power which is given to the ministers of justice and which applies punishments to sinners, which is what I think is meant in the passage where it is recorded that the wrath of God moved David to order Joab to number the people. The invisible things of God may be contemplated by the things which have been made. What is unknown about God is the essence of his very nature, which is in my opinion concealed, not only from humanity but even from the angelic creatures. For only God knows whether there has ever been anyone so perfect in his grasp of things that he has been able to attain to a pure knowledge of God’s very essence. Nonetheless, we may hope that such may in due time be revealed, for this appears in the words of the Savior: “No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” And he would not have added this last phrase if he had not known that there were some to whom God wanted to become revealed.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

But (as I have said) pardon may be granted to those who are ignorant and do not own themselves to be wise; but it cannot be extended to those who, while they profess wisdom, rather exhibit folly. I am not, indeed, so unjust as to imagine that they could divine, so that they might find out the truth by themselves; for I acknowledge that this is impossible. But I require from them that which they were able to perform by reason itself. For they would act more prudently, if they both understood that some form of religion is true, and if, while they attacked false religions, they openly proclaimed that men were not in possession of that which is true.

The Divine Institutes Book 2, Chapter III

The energies of the divine being have always been invisible by nature, and they are never revealed to anybody directly, but they are made known through the creation.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

The knowledge of God is plain from the structure of the world. For God, who by nature is invisible, may be known even from things which are visible. For his work is made in such a way that it reveals its Maker by its very visibility, so that what is concealed may be known by looking at what is revealed. This is revealed so that everyone might believe that he is God, who made this cosmos, which is impossible for anyone else to do.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

But this glory they invested stocks and stones with. As then he which is entrusted with the goods of the king, and is ordered to spend them upon the king's glory, if he waste these upon robbers, and harlots, and witches, and make these splendid out of the king's stores, he is punished as having done the kingdom the greatest wrong. Thus they also who after having received the knowledge of God and of His glory, invested idols therewith, "held the truth in unrighteousness," and, at least as far as was in their power, dealt unrighteously by the knowledge, by not using it upon fitting objects. Now, has what was said become clear to you, or must one make it still clearer? Perhaps it were needful to say somewhat more. What then is it which is here said? The knowledge of Himself God placed in men from the beginning. But this knowledge they invested stocks and stones with, and so dealt unrighteously to the truth, as far at least as they might. For it abideth unchanged, having its own glory immutable. "And whence is it plain that He placed in them this knowledge, O Paul?" "Because," saith he, "that which may be known of Him is manifest in them." This, however, is an assertion, not a proof. But do thou make it good, and show me that the knowledge of God was plain to them, and that they willingly turned aside. Whence was it plain then? did He send them a voice from above? By no means. But what was able to draw them to Him more than a voice, that He did, by putting before them the Creation, so that both wise, and unlearned, and Scythian, and barbarian, having through sight learned the beauty of the things which were seen, might mount up to God. Wherefore he says,

Homily on Romans 3

What can be known about God, i.e., that God exists and that God is just, is plain to their consciences. For every creature knows that it is not God and that it was made by another.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Then when he says because that which is known of God, he manifests what he has said, but in reverse order. For he first admits that wise men among the gentiles knew the truth about God; second, he shows that there was ungodliness and injustice among them, at so that they are inexcusable; third, that they have incurred God's wrath, at who, having known the justice of God (Rom 1:32). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows what they knew about God; second, from whom they obtained this knowledge, at for God has manifested it unto them; third, how they obtained it, at for the invisible things.

First, therefore, he says: rightly do I say that they have suppressed the truth about God. For they did possess some true knowledge of God, because that which is known of God, i.e., what can be known about God by men through reason, is manifest in them, i.e., is manifest to them from something in them, i.e., from an inner light. Therefore, it should be noted that some things about God are entirely unknown to man in this life, namely, what God is. Hence Paul found in Athens an altar inscribed: to the unknown God (Acts 17:23). The reason for this is that man's knowledge begins with things connatural to him, namely, sensible creatures, which are not proportioned to representing the divine essence.

But man is capable of knowing God from such creatures in three ways, as Denis says in The Divine Names. He knows him, first of all, through causality. For since these creatures are subject to change and decay, it is necessary to trace them back to some unchangeable and unfailing principle. In this way, it can be known that God exists. Second, he can be known by the way of excellence. For all things are not traced back to the first principle as to a proper and univocal cause, as when man produces man, but to a common and exceeding cause. From this it is known that God is above all things. Third, he can be known by the way of negation. For if God is a cause exceeding his effects, nothing in creatures can belong to him, just as a heavenly body is not properly called heavy or light or hot or cold. And in this way, we say that God is unchangeable and infinite; and we use other negative expressions to describe him.

Men had such knowledge through the light of reason bestowed on them: many say: O, that we might see some good! Lift up the light of your countenance upon us, O Lord (Ps 4:6).

Then when he says God has manifested it unto them, he shows by what author such knowledge was manifested to them and says that it was God: he teaches us more than the beasts of the earth (Job 35:11). Here it should be noted that one man manifests something to another by unfolding his own thought by means of such external signs as vocal sounds or writing. But God manifests something to man in two ways: first, by endowing him with an inner light through which he knows: send out your light and your truth (Ps 43:3); second, by proposing external signs of his wisdom, namely, sensible creatures: he poured her out, namely, wisdom, over all his works (Sir 1:9). Thus God manifested it to them either from within by endowing them with a light or from without by presenting visible creatures, in which, as in a book, the knowledge of God may be read.

Commentary on Romans

19–20

Now there is very good ground for guessing that religion did not originally come from some detail that was forgotten because it was too small to be traced. Much more probably it was an idea that was abandoned because it was too large to be managed. There is very good reason to suppose that many people did begin with the simple but overwhelming idea of one God who governs all; and afterwards fell away into such things as demon-worship almost as a sort of secret dissipation. Even the test of savage beliefs, of which the folk-lore students are so fond, is admittedly often found to support such a view. Some of the very rudest savages, primitive in every sense in which anthropologists use the word, the Australian aborigines for instance, are found to have a pure monotheism with a high moral tone. A missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of polytheists, who had told him all their polytheistic tales, and telling them in return of the existence of the one good God who is a spirit and judges men by spiritual standards. And there was a sudden buzz of excitement among these stolid barbarians, as at somebody who was letting out a secret, and they cried to each other, ‘Atahocan! He is speaking of Atahocan!’

The Everlasting Man, Ch. 4 (1925)

[Reflecting on his own atheism as a schoolboy, Lewis describes the self-contradictions of the antitheist position as evidence that knowledge of God persists even in denial]

I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.

Surprised by Joy, Chapter 7: Light and Shade

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties don't matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.

Mere Christianity, Book 1, Chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature

[Arguing that the universality of the Moral Law across cultures proves it is a real truth discoverable in human nature, not a mere social invention]

I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different—we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right—and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs. There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great—not nearly so great as most people imagine—and you can recognise the same law running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent.

Mere Christianity, Book 1, Chapter 2: Some Objections

I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, 'I've no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I'm a religious man too. I know there's a God. I've felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that's just why I don't believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who's met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!'

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Mere Christianity, Book 4, Chapter 1: Making and Begetting

And of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works.

The objects which are touched by the mind are of a higher nature, since they are spiritual, than those which are grasped by the senses. Since these are corporeal, any superiority they may display lies only in the “objects”—e.g., as lofty ones contrasted with humble—not in the “faculties” of the intellect over against the senses. For how can the intellect be considered sovereign above the senses, when it is these which educate it for the discovery of various truths? It is a fact that these truths are learned by means of palpable forms; in other words, invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the apostle says in his epistle.

A Treatise on the Soul 18

For how can the intellect be superior to the senses, when it is these which educate it for the discovery of various truths? It is a fact, that these truths are learned by means of palpable forms; in other words, invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the apostle tells us in his epistle: "For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made; " and as Plato too might inform our heretics: "The things which appear are the image of the things which are concealed from view," whence it must needs follow that this world is by all means an image of some other: so that the intellect evidently uses the senses for its own guidance, and authority, and mainstay; and without the senses truth could not be attained.

A Treatise on the Soul

And so upon this ground of inactivity and lack of works he is guilty both of impudence and malignity: of impudence, in aspiring after a belief which is not due to him, and for which he has provided no foundation; of malignity, in having brought many persons under the charge of unbelief by furnishing to them no groundwork for their faith.

Against Marcion Book 1

For He conceals by His preparatory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the understanding of which is open to faith (for "if ye will not believe, ye shall not understand" ); and He had offenders in those wise and prudent ones who would not seek after God, although He was to be discovered in His so many and mighty works, or who rashly philosophized about Him, and thereby furnished to heretics their arts; and lastly, He is a jealous God.

Against Marcion Book 4

(This being then an unquestionable position, I ask) which God has the greater fight to be angry? He, as I suppose, who from the beginning of all things has given to man, as primary witnesses for the knowledge of Himself, nature in her (manifold) works, kindly providences, plagues, and indications (of His divinity), but who in spite of all this evidence has not been acknowledged; or he who has been brought out to view once for all in one only copy of the gospel-and even that without any sure authority-which actually makes no secret of proclaiming another god? Now He who has the right of inflicting the vengeance, has also sole claim to that which occasions the vengeance, I mean the Gospel; (in other words, ) both the truth and (its accompanying) salvation.

Against Marcion Book 5

They are, however, His "invisible things," which, according to the apostle, "are from the creation of the world clearly seen by the things that are made; they are no parts of a nondescript Matter, but they are the sensible evidences of Himself.

Against Hermogenes

For (the Naassene) says, there is the hermaphrodite man. According to this account of theirs, the intercourse of woman with man is demonstrated, in conformity with such teaching, to be an exceedingly wicked and filthy (practice). For, says (the Naassene), Attis has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite. As to where, however, they use the expression "above," I shall show when I come to the proper place (for treating this subject). But they assert that, by their account, they testify that Rhea is not absolutely isolated, but-for so I may say-the universal creature; and this they declare to be what is affirmed by the Word. "For the invisible things of Him are seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made by Him, even His eternal power and Godhead, for the purpose of leaving them without excuse. Wherefore, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, nor gave Him thanks; but their foolish heart was rendered vain. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into images of the likeness of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore also God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." What, however, the natural use is, according to them, we shall afterwards declare. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"-now the expression that which is unseemly signifies, according to these (Naasseni), the first and blessed substance, figureless, the cause of all figures to those things that are moulded into shapes,-"and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs, and a hidden mystery of blessed pleasure, are comprised. For the promise of washing is not any other, according to them, than the introduction of him that is washed in, according to them, life-giving water, and anointed with ineffable ointment (than his introduction) into unfading bliss.

Refutation of All Heresies Book 5

These things apply to all human beings who possess natural reason. Yet they more specifically apply to those called philosophers, who are wise in the things of this world. Their job is to ponder the creatures of this world and everything which is made in it, and from the things which are seen, to perceive in their minds the things which are invisible.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

From this we infer that all who live on this earth have to begin with the use of the senses upon sensible objects in order to go on from them to a knowledge of the nature of intellectual things. Yet their knowledge must not stop short with the objects of sense.

Against Celsus 7.37

The human mind, learning to know the hidden things from those which are manifest, may consider in spirit the greatness of the Maker from the greatness of his works, which it sees with the eyes of the mind.

The Trinity 3.6

You will find that the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings. It is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God. Through visible and perceptible objects it provides guidance to the mind for the contemplation of the invisible.

Homily One, Creation of the Heavens and Earth 1.6

In all things visible, clear reminders of the Benefactor grip us. We shall not give any opportunity for sins, nor shall we leave any place in our hearts for the enemy, if we have God as a dweller in us by our constant remembrance of him.

Hexameron 3.10

Paul here repeats the same thing in order to teach even more absolutely that, although the power and majesty of God cannot by themselves be seen by the eyes of the creature, they may be known by the work of the structure of the world. In this way he indicts those who lived without law, whether natural or Mosaic. For by the habit of sinning they broke the law of nature, wiping out any memory of him. But they did not want to accept the law, which had been given for their reformation, and thus were doubly condemned.His power and deity are eternal, so that they are without excuse. So that ungodliness might in no way be excused, Paul added that the power of God and his eternal divinity were known by men, who were prevented by some foolishness from honoring God, who they knew existed and provided for their welfare.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

For we easily understand that the author of the Angels and Dominations and Powers, who in the moment of His command made this great beauty of the world exist out of nothing, which did not exist before; and He did not give substance to existing things or causes.

The Six Days of Creation, Book 1, Chapter 4

For to those who think aright, God is manifest even by the operations of the world which He has made, using the evidence of His creation; [Romans 1:20] and therefore, since there ought to be no doubt about God, we have now to inquire only about His righteousness and His kingdom. But if our mind suggest to us to make any inquiry concerning secret and hidden things before we inquire into the works of righteousness, we ought to render to ourselves a reason, because if acting well we shall merit to obtain salvation: then, going to God chaste and clean, we shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, and shall know all things that are secret and hidden, without any cavilling of questions; whereas now, even if any one should spend the whole of his life in inquiring into these things, he not only shall not be able to find them, but shall involve himself in greater errors, because he did not first enter through the way of righteousness, and strive to reach the haven of life."

Recognitions, Book 2

Which also the prophet said, "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Ps. xix. 1.) For what will the Greeks (i.e. Heathen) say in that day? That "we were ignorant of Thee?" Did ye then not hear the heaven sending forth a voice by the sight, while the well-ordered harmony of all things spake out more clearly than a trumpet? Did ye not see the hours of night and day abiding unmoved continually, the goodly order of winter, spring, and the other seasons remaining both sure and unmoved, the tractableness of the sea amid all its turbulence and waves? All things abiding in order and by their beauty and their grandeur, preaching aloud of the Creator? For all these things and more than these doth Paul sum up in saying, "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." And yet it is not for this God hath made these things, even if this came of it. For it was not to bereave them of all excuse, that He set before them so great a system of teaching, but that they might come to know Him. But by not having recognized Him they deprived themselves of every excuse, and then to show how they are bereaved of excuse, he says,

Homily on Romans 3

God’s hidden qualities can be deduced from things which are manifest. For if he made visible things so splendid that some people thought they were gods and tried to maintain that they were eternal, how much more were these people capable of understanding that the one who made these things is everlasting, almighty and boundless?

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Invisible things are seen in a special and appropriate way. When they are seen they are much more certain than the objects of the bodily sense, but they are said to be invisible because they cannot be seen by mortal eyes.

Letter 120

Notice that Paul does not call them ignorant of the truth but says that they held the truth in iniquity, and he does not fail to answer the obvious question: How could those to whom God had not given the law have a knowledge of the truth? For he says that through the visible things of the creation they reached an understanding of the invisible things of the Creator.

The Spirit and the Letter 19.12

How does Paul mean that they are without excuse, except by reference to a kind of excuse that usually prompts human pride to voice such protestations as: “If only I had known, I would not have done it.” … This kind of excuse is taken away from them when a precept is given or when the knowledge of how to avoid sin is made clear to them.

Grace and Free Will 2.2

He created us with such a nature, placing a mind and reason within us and granting us these things so that by studying this world we might come to a knowledge of the invisible things which are his.Paul says that they are without excuse in order to shut them up.… For God did not deign to reveal himself to human beings in order to give them some excuse but in order to show them that it would be to their advantage to accept him and his mercy.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

The very creation, by its harmony and ordering, proclaims the majesty of the divine nature.

Orthodox Faith 1.1

So it turned out in practice. God created the world not so that they would be without excuse; but so it turned out in practice. Note this peculiarity of Scripture and do not criticize it. In many places it contains such expressions, for the explanation of which one must seek the reason for what is mentioned in it through experience. Thus David says: "and done evil in Your sight, so that You are justified in Your sentence" (Ps. 50:6). This expression seems strange; but it is not so. It conveys the following: having been blessed by You, Lord, beyond all expectation, I sinned before You; from this it came about that if You assert Your rights against me at the judgment, You will prevail. Thus, God is justified by our actions, when we prove ungrateful to Him for the benefits received from Him and have nothing in our defense. The pagans, therefore, have no excuse either; for having come to know God from creation, they did not glorify Him as they ought, but rendered the worship due to Him to idols.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, he shows the manner in which they received such knowledge. Here the first points to be considered are the things they have known about God. He mentions three.

First, the invisible things of him, through which one understands God's essence, which, as was said, cannot be seen by us: no one has ever seen God (John 1:18), i.e., in his essence, no one living in this mortal life: to the king of ages, immortal, invisible (1 Tim 1:17). He says invisible things, using the plural, because God's essence is not known to us in regard to what it is, i.e., as it is in itself one. That is the way it will be known in heaven: on that day the Lord will be one and his name one (Zech 14:9). But it is now manifested to us through certain likenesses found in creatures, which participate in manifold ways in that which is one in God. Accordingly, our intellect considers the unity of the divine essence under the aspects of goodness, wisdom, power, and so on, all of which are one in God. Therefore he calls these the invisible things of God, because the one reality in God which corresponds to these names or notions is not seen by us: so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear (Heb 11:3).

Another thing known about God is his power, in virtue of which all things proceed from him as from a principle: great is the Lord and abundant in power (Ps 147:5). This power the philosophers knew to be eternal; hence it is called his eternal power.

The third thing known is what he calls divinity, namely, they knew God as the ultimate end unto which all things tend. For the divine good is called the common good in which all things participate; on this account he says divinity, which signifies participation, rather than deity, which signifies God's essence: for in him the whole fullness of divinity dwells bodily (Col 2:9). These three things are referred to the above-mentioned three ways of knowing. For the invisible things of God are known by the method of negation; the eternal power by the method of causality; the divinity by way of excellence.

Second, one must consider the medium through which they knew those things. This is designated when he says by the things that are made. For just as an art is shown by an artist's works, so God's wisdom is shown by his creatures: from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their creator (Wis 13:5).

Third, he shows how God is known through them when he says clearly seen, being understood. For it is by the intellect that God is known, not by the senses or imagination, which do not extend beyond bodily things: but God is spirit (John 4:24); behold my servant shall understand (Isa 52:13).

Fourth, he designates the things from which God is known by this medium when he says from the creation of the world. In one way, this can be understood as referring to man: preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), either on account of the excellence of man, who in the order of nature is less than the angels but greater than lower creatures: yet you have made him less than the angels; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen (Ps 8:5), or because he has something in common with every creature. For he has existence in common with stones, life in common with trees, sense in common with animals, and intelligence in common with angels, as Gregory says.

In another way it can be understood of all creation. For no creature by its own natural power can see God's essence in itself. Hence it is said even of the Seraphim, with two wings they covered their head (Isa 6:2). But just as man understands God through visible creatures, so an angel understands God by understanding its own essence.

Or, creation of the world can be taken to mean not created things but the creation of things, as though it were said: from the creation of the world. In this case, one interpretation would be that the invisible things of God are understood by means of things made since the creation of the world and not only since the time of grace. Another interpretation would be that from the creation of the world men began to know God through the things that were made: all men have looked on it (Job 36:25).

But a Gloss says that by the invisible things of God is meant the person of the Father: whom no man has ever seen or can see (1 Tim 6:16); by the eternal power the person of the Son: Christ the power of God (1 Cor 1:24); by divinity the person of the Holy Spirit, to whom goodness is appropriated. Not that philosophers under the lead of reason could arrive by means of created things to a knowledge of the persons, so as to know what are proper to each, which do not signify any causal connection with creatures; but by way of appropriation. Yet they are said to have failed in the third sign, i.e., in the Holy Spirit, because they did not mention anything corresponding to the Holy Spirit, as they did for the Father, namely the very first principle, and for the Son, namely the first mind created, which they called the Father's understanding, as Macrobius says in his book On the Dream of Scipio.

After showing that truth about God was known by the gentiles, he now states that they were guilty of the sins of ungodliness and injustice. First, he shows this with regard to the sin of impiety; second, in regard to injustice, at and as they liked not to have (Rom 1:28). But someone might believe that they would be excused from the sin of ungodliness on account of ignorance, as the Apostle says of himself in 1 Timothy: I received mercy, because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief (1 Tim 1:13). First, therefore, he shows that they are without excuse; second, he states their sin, at and they changed the glory.

In regard to the first it should be noted that ignorance excuses from guilt, when it precedes and causes guilt in such a way that the ignorance itself is not the result of guilt; for example, when a person, after exercising due caution, thinks he is striking a foe, when he is really striking his father. But if the ignorance is caused by guilt, it cannot excuse one from a fault that follows. Thus, if a person commits murder, because he is drunk, he is not excused from the guilt, because he sinned by intoxicating himself; indeed, according to the Philosopher, he deserves a double penalty.

First, therefore, he states his intention, saying so, i.e., things about God are so well known to them, that they may be without excuse, i.e., they cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance: whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (Jas 4:17); wherefore, you are inexcusable (Rom 2:1).

Commentary on Romans

Possibly the most pathetic of all the delusions of the modern students of primitive belief is the notion they have about the thing they call anthropomorphism. They believe that primitive men attributed phenomena to a god in human form in order to explain them, because his mind in its sullen limitation could not reach any further than his own clownish existence. The thunder was called the voice of a man, the lightning the eyes of a man, because by this explanation they were made more reasonable and comfortable. The final cure for all this kind of philosophy is to walk down a lane at night. Any one who does so will discover very quickly that men pictured something semi-human at the back of all things, not because such a thought was natural, but because it was supernatural; not because it made things more comprehensible, but because it made them a hundred times more incomprehensible and mysterious. For a man walking down a lane at night can see the conspicuous fact that as long as nature keeps to her own course, she has no power with us at all. As long as a tree is a tree, it is a top-heavy monster with a hundred arms, a thousand tongues, and only one leg. But so long as a tree is a tree, it does not frighten us at all. It begins to be something alien, to be something strange, only when it looks like ourselves. When a tree really looks like a man our knees knock under us. And when the whole universe looks like a man we fall on our faces.

Heretics, Chapter XI: Science and the Savages (1905)

The sun by this time was a blazing fact; and I saw that all Nature is chivalrous and militant. We do wrong to seek peace in Nature; we should rather seek the nobler sort of war; and see all the trees as green banners... "Whom can I pay for my own superb experience? What is the usual charge for seeing the clouds shattered by the sun? What is the market price of a tree blue on the sky-line and then blinding white in the sun? Mention your price for that windmill that stood behind the hollyhocks in the garden. Let me pay you for..."

Tremendous Trifles, A Cab Ride Across Country (1909)

I stared stupidly round, racking my brain for expedients. Then I suddenly stood up and roared with laughter, again and again, so that the cows stared at me and called a committee. Imagine a man in the Sahara regretting that he had no sand for his hour-glass. Imagine a gentleman in mid-ocean wishing that he had brought some salt water with him for his chemical experiments. I was sitting on an immense warehouse of white chalk. The landscape was made entirely out of white chalk. White chalk was piled more miles until it met the sky. I stooped and broke a piece off the rock I sat on; it did not mark so well as the shop chalks do; but it gave the effect.

Tremendous Trifles, A Piece of Chalk (1909)

Can you not see that fairy tales in their essence are quite solid and straightforward; but that this everlasting fiction about modern life is in its nature essentially incredible? Folk-lore means that the soul is sane, but that the universe is wild and full of marvels. Realism means that the world is dull and full of routine, but that the soul is sick and screaming. The problem of the fairy tale is--what will a healthy man do with a fantastic world? The problem of the modern novel is--what will a madman do with a dull world? In the fairy tales the cosmos goes mad; but the hero does not go mad. In the modern novels the hero is mad before the book begins, and suffers from the harsh steadiness and cruel sanity of the cosmos.

Tremendous Trifles, The Dragon's Grandmother (1909)

You cannot see a wind; you can only see that there is a wind. So, also, you cannot see a revolution; you can only see that there is a revolution. And there never has been in the history of the world a real revolution, brutally active and decisive, which was not preceded by unrest and new dogma in the reign of invisible things. All revolutions began by being abstract. Most revolutions began by being quite pedantically abstract.

Tremendous Trifles, The Wind and the Trees (1909)

The Fabian argument of the expert, that the man who is trained should be the man who is trusted would be absolutely unanswerable if it were really true that a man who studied a thing and practiced it every day went on seeing more and more of its significance. But he does not. He goes on seeing less and less of its significance. In the same way, alas! we all go on every day, unless we are continually goading ourselves into gratitude and humility, seeing less and less of the significance of the sky or the stones.

Tremendous Trifles, The Twelve Men (1909)

He who holds the Christian and Catholic view of human nature will feel certain that it is a universal and therefore a sane view, and will be satisfied. But if he has lost the sane vision, he can only get it back by something very like a mad vision; that is, by seeing man as a strange animal and realising how strange an animal he is. But just as seeing the horse as a prehistoric prodigy ultimately led back to, and not away from, an admiration for the mastery of man, so the really detached consideration of the curious career of man will lead back to, and not away from, the ancient faith in the dark designs of God. In other words, it is exactly when we do see how queer the quadruped is that we praise the man who mounts him; and exactly when we do see how queer the biped is that we praise the Providence that made him.

The Everlasting Man, Introduction: The Plan of This Book (1925)

Nor could any one imagine any connection between corn and dreams and an old chief with a spear, unless there was already a common feeling to include them all. But if there was such a common feeling it could only be the religious feeling; and these things could not be the beginnings of a religious feeling that existed already. I think anybody’s common sense will tell him that it is far more likely that this sort of mystical sentiment did exist already; and that in the light of it dreams and kings and cornfields could appear mystical then, as they can appear mystical now.

The Everlasting Man, Part 1 Ch. 2: Professors and Prehistoric Men

I had always vaguely felt facts to be miracles in the sense that they are wonderful: now I began to think them miracles in the stricter sense that they were wilful. I mean that they were, or might be, repeated exercises of some will. In short, I had always believed that the world involved magic: now I thought that perhaps it involved a magician. And this pointed a profound emotion always present and sub-conscious; that this world of ours has some purpose; and if there is a purpose, there is a person. I had always felt life first as a story: and if there is a story there is a story-teller.

Orthodoxy, Ch. 4: The Ethics of Elfland (1908)

[Responding to the question "Materialists and some astronomers suggest that the solar planetary system and life as we know it was brought about by an accidental stellar collision. What is the Christian view of this theory?"]

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts—i.e., of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Answers to Questions on Christianity, from God in the Dock

For the first time in my life I began to look at the question with both eyes open. In the world I know, the perfect produces the imperfect, which again becomes perfect — egg leads to bird and bird to egg — in endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself by its own shoulder-straps out of pure savagery, then this event was totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent civilization. The thing may have happened; but all its plausibility is gone. On any view, the first beginning must have been outside the ordinary processes of nature. An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside sequence altogether? You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?

Two Lectures, from God in the Dock

One might argue that reason had developed by natural selection, only those methods of thought which had proved useful surviving. But the theory depends on an inference from usefulness to truth, of which the validity would have to be assumed. All attempts to treat thought as a natural event involve the fallacy of excluding the thought of the man making the attempt.

It is admitted that the mind is affected by physical events; a wireless set is influenced by atmospherics, but it does not originate its deliverances — we'd take no notice of it if we thought it did. Natural events we can relate one to another until we can trace them finally to the space-time continuum. But thought has no father but thought. It is conditioned, yes, not caused. My knowledge that I have nerves is inferential.

Bulverism, from God in the Dock

Nature never taught me that there exists a God of glory and of infinite majesty. I had to learn that in other ways. But nature gave the word _glory_ a meaning for me. I still do not know where else I could have found one.... Of course the fact that a Christian can so use nature is not even the beginning of a proof that Christianity is true.... A true philosophy may sometimes validate an experience of nature; an experience of nature cannot validate a philosophy. Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition...; she will help to show what it means. And not, on the Christian premises, by accident. The created glory may be expected to give us hints of the uncreated; for the one is derived from the other and in some fashion reflects it.

The Four Loves, Chapter 2: Likings and Loves for the Sub-human

People often talk as if nothing were easier than for two naked minds to "meet" or become aware of each other. But I see no possibility of their doing so except in a common medium which forms their "external world" or environment. Even our vague attempt to imagine such a meeting between disembodied spirits usually slips in surreptitiously the idea of, at least, a common space and common time, to give the co- in co-existence a meaning: and space and time are already an environment. But more than this is required. If your thoughts and passions were directly present to me, like my own, without any mark of externality or otherness, how should I distinguish them from mine? And what thoughts or passions could we begin to have without objects to think and feel about? Nay, could I even begin to have the conception of "external" and "other" unless I had experience of an "external world"? You may reply, as a Christian, that God (and Satan) do, in fact, affect my consciousness in this direct way without signs of "externality". Yes: and the result is that most people remain ignorant of the existence of both. We may therefore suppose that if human souls affected one another directly and immaterially, it would be a rare triumph of faith and insight for any one of them to believe in the existence of the others. It would be harder for me to know my neighbour under such conditions than it now is for me to know God: for in recognising the impact of God upon me I am now helped by things that reach me through the external world, such as the tradition of the Church, Holy Scripture, and the conversation of religious friends. What we need for human society is exactly what we have--a neutral something, neither you nor I, which we can both manipulate so as to make signs to each other. I can talk to you because we can both set up sound-waves in the common air between us. Matter, which keeps souls apart, also brings them together. It enables each of us to have an "outside" as well as an "inside", so that what are acts of will and thought for you are noises and glances for me; you are enabled not only to be, but to appear: and hence I have the pleasure of making your acquaintance.

The Problem of Pain, Chapter 2: Divine Omnipotence

Total surrender is the first step towards the fruition of either. Shut your mouth; open your eyes and ears. Take in what is there and give no thought to what might have been there or what is somewhere else. That can come later, if it must come at all. (And notice here how the true training for anything whatever that is good always prefigures and, if submitted to, will always help us in, the true training for the Christian life. That is a school where they can always use your previous work whatever subject it was on.)

Surprised by Joy, Ch. 9: The Great Knock

[Lewis argues that the resemblance between imaginative experience and Christian experience is not accidental, but that all created things reflect heavenly truth]

I do not think the resemblance between the Christian and the merely imaginative experience is accidental. I think that all things, in their way, reflect heavenly truth, the imagination not least. "Reflect" is the important word. This lower life of the imagination is not a beginning of, nor a step towards, the higher life of the spirit, merely an image. In me, at any rate, it contained no element either of belief or of ethics; however far pursued, it would never have made me either wiser or better. But it still had, at however many removes, the shape of the reality it reflected.

Surprised by Joy, Ch. 11: Check

Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness: not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God's, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms. Matter is like God in having energy: though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is alive, and He is the 'living God'. But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God: it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it.

Mere Christianity, Book 4, Chapter 1: Making and Begetting

A spiritual disciple of this sort truly receiving the Spirit of God, who was from the beginning, in all the dispensations of God, present with mankind, and announced things future, revealed things present, and narrated things past-[such a man] does indeed "judge all men, but is himself judged by no man." For he judges the Gentiles, "who serve the creature more than the Creator," and with a reprobate mind spend all their labour on vanity.

Against Heresies Book 4

That idols are not gods, and that the elements are not to be worshipped in the place of gods. In the cxiiith Psalm it is shown that "the idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have a mouth, and speak not; eyes have they, and see not. They have ears, and hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouth. Let those that make them be made like unto them." Also in the Wisdom of Solomon: "They counted all the idols of the nations to be gods, which neither have the use of eyes to see, nor noses to draw breath, nor ears to hear, nor fingers on their hands to handle; and as for their feet, they are slow to go. For man made them, and he that borrowed his own spirit fashioned them; but no man can make a god like unto himself. For, since he is mortal, he worketh a dead thing with wicked hands; for he himself is better than the things which he worshippeth, since he indeed lived once, but they never." In Exodus also: "Thou shalt not make to thee an idol, nor the likeness of anything." Moreover, in Solomon, concerning the elements: "Neither by considering the works did they acknowledge who was the workmaster; but deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the sun, or the moon, to be gods. On account of whose beauty, if they thought this, let them know how much more beautiful is the Lord than they. Or if they admired their powers and operations, let them understand by them, that He that made these mighty things is mightier than they."

Treatise XI Exhortation to Martyrdom Addressed to Fortunatus

Now certainly the wretched ones were overwhelmed in the chaos of error, "because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; "

Discourse VIII. Thekla

When I reflect, O Emperor Constantine, and often revolve in my mind the original condition of men, it is accustomed to appear alike wonderful and unworthy that, by the folly of one age embracing various superstitions, and believing in the existence of many gods, they suddenly arrived at such ignorance of themselves, that the truth being taken away from their eyes, the religion of the true God was not observed, nor the condition of human nature, since men did not seek the chief good in heaven, but on earth. And on this account assuredly the happiness of the ancient ages was changed. For, having left God, the parent and founder of all things, men began to worship the senseless works of their own hands. And what were the effects of this corruption, or what evils it introduced, the subject itself sufficiently declares. For, turning away from the chief good, which is blessed and everlasting on this account, because it cannot be seen, or touched, or comprehended, and from the virtues which are in agreement with that good, and which are equally immortal, gliding down to these corrupt and frail gods, and devoting themselves to those things by which the body only is adorned, and nourished, and delighted, they sought eternal death for themselves, together with their gods and goods relating to the body, because all bodies are subject to death.

The Divine Institutes Book 4, Chapter I

It may seem that Paul has simplified his argument against the Greeks, because he condemns idolatry as the only kind of ungodliness. But to those who look more carefully at what he says, things will appear not this way but rather that Paul has broadened his horizons, so as not to overlook any kind of impiety.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

It is futile to conceive of nonbeing as if it were being, as do those who worship vanity as if it were God. For this reason their minds have been rendered senseless and darkness has entered their souls.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

They were so far from being ignorant that they confessed that there was a single principle from which all things heavenly, earthly and infernal derived their origin, and that there was only one being who decreed what properties and duties would belong to everything by nature. Yet knowing this they did not give thanks. Paul is speaking of the ancients in order to correct his contemporaries and future generations.Truly this is futility, that knowing the truth they decided to worship something else which they knew was not true, so that hiding from God they might worship idols. A cloud of error covered their hearts. Although they should have honored the Creator all the more from the beautiful things which he made, they clung to what they had, saying that the things which they could see were sufficient for their salvation.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

This is the one greatest charge; and the second after it is their also worshipping idols, as Jeremy too in accusing them said, "This people hath committed two evils: they have forsaken me the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves broken cisterns." (Jer. ii. 13.) And then as a sign of their having known God, and not used their knowledge upon a fit object, he adduces this very thing, that they knew gods. Wherefore he adds, "because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God." And he names the cause through which they fell into such senselessness. What then is it? They trusted everything to their reasonings. Still he does not word it so, but in a much sharper language, "but became vain in their reasonings, and their foolish heart was darkened." For as in a night without a moon, if any one attempt to go by a strange road, or to sail over a strange sea, so far will he be from soon reaching his destination, that he will speedily be lost. Thus they, attempting to go the way leading to Heaven, and having destroyed the light from their own selves, and, in lieu of it, trusted themselves to the darkness of their own reasoning, and seeking in bodies for Him who is incorporeal, and in shapes for Him who hath no shape, underwent a most rueful shipwreck. But beside what has been said, he names also another cause of their error, when he says,

Homily on Romans 3

Imagining that they could grasp God with their minds, they fell away from their natural instinct and worshiped creatures instead of the Creator.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

If they had given thanks to God who gave this wisdom, they would not have claimed any credit for their own ideas. Therefore they were given over by the Lord to the desires of their own hearts, and did improper things.

On Romans 4

Surely that darkening of the heart was already a penalty and punishment, and by that penalty, that is by the blinding of the heart because of the abandonment by the light of wisdom, they fell into more and more serious sins.

On Nature and Grace 22.24

It is well known how Greek schools and Roman eloquence and the search of the whole world in the quest of the supreme good, with the most penetrating study and outstanding ability, accomplished nothing by their labor except to become “futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.”

Grace and Free Will 12.4

The pagans knew that there was a God, and it is clear that they did not receive judgment because of this. For it was not for want of knowledge that they were condemned, but the opposite. For each one glorified God in the sense that whatever he thought God was, that he served. Thus they corrupted the whole matter by their peculiar and mistaken ideas. They abandoned God’s way of knowing him and preferred their own, falling into the deepest imbecility, outdoing themselves in their so-called wisdom by adding to their foolishness, descending to the worship of reptiles and inanimate objects.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

In the hearts of the Gentiles, the purest honoring of the one God was changed into the bloody worship of different gods.

Sermon 100a.2

Above he said that the pagans insulted the knowledge of God by not using it as they ought. From what is it evident that they had this knowledge? He speaks of this now: "for what can be known about God is plain to them." Then he proves this too, saying that the good order of creation proclaims the Creator, as David also says: "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps. 18:2). And what exactly can be known about God, learn from the following. Concerning God, some things cannot be known, namely His essence, while other things can be known—that is, everything pertaining to His essence: goodness, wisdom, power, divinity or majesty, which Paul also calls "His invisible attributes," but known through the contemplation of visible creatures. Thus the apostle showed the pagans what can be known about God, that is, everything pertaining to His essence, which is invisible to the eyes of the senses but can be perceived by the mind from the good order of creation. Some understand "invisible things" here to mean the angels, but such an understanding, in my opinion, is incorrect. One of the fathers stated that "eternal power" is the Son, and "Godhead" is the Holy Spirit.

They became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. He presents the reason why they fell into such madness. In everything, he says, they relied on their own reasoning, and, wishing to find the Indescribable in images and the Incorporeal in bodies, they proved unsuccessful, unable to achieve their goal through reasoning. He calls their heart foolish because they did not wish to know all things by faith.

Commentary on Romans

Second, he proves his statement at because that, when they knew. First, he shows that their first guilt did not proceed from ignorance; second, that their ignorance proceeded from this guilt, at but became vain.

That their basic guilt was not due to ignorance is shown by the fact that, although they possessed knowledge of God, they failed to use it unto good. For they knew God in two ways: first, as the supereminent being, to whom glory and honor were due. They are said to be without excuse, therefore, because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, either because they failed to pay him due worship or because they put a limit to his power and knowledge by denying certain aspects of his power and knowledge, contrary to Ecclesiastes: when you exalt him, put forth all your strength (Eccl 43:30). Second, they knew him as the cause of all good things. Hence, in all things he was deserving of thanks, which they did not render; rather, they attributed their blessings to their own talent and power. Hence, he adds or given thanks, namely, to the Lord: give thanks to him in all circumstances (1 Thess 5:18).

Then when he says but became vain he shows that in their case, ignorance was the result of their guilt. First, he states his charge; second, he explains it, at for, professing themselves. First, then, he mentions the guilt which caused their ignorance, when he says, became vain. For something is futile when it lacks stability or firmness. But God alone is changeless: I, the Lord, do not change (Mal 3:6). Consequently, the human mind is free of futility only when it leans on God. But when God is rejected and the mind rests in creatures, it incurs futility: for all men who were ignorant of God were foolish and could not know God from the good things which are seen (Wis 13:1); the Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain (Ps 94:11). In their thoughts they became vain, because they put their trust in themselves and not in God, ascribing their blessings not to God but to themselves, as the Psalmist says: our lips are with us; who is our master? (Ps 11:4).

Second, he mentions the ignorance which followed, when he says was darkened, i.e., by the fact that their foolish heart was darkened, i.e., deprived of the light of wisdom, through which man truly knows God. For just as a person who turns his bodily eyes from the sun is put in darkness, so one who turns from God, presuming on himself and not on God, is put in spiritual darkness: where there is humility, which subjects a man to God, there is wisdom; where there is pride, there is a disgrace (Prov 11:2); you have hidden these things from the wise, as they seemed to themselves, and revealed them to babes, i.e., to the humble (Matt 11:25); the gentiles live in the futility of their mind; they are darkened in their understanding (Eph 4:17).

Commentary on Romans

"You have worked this street to death, and yet you have never remembered its existence. If you had a healthy democracy, even of pagans, they would have hung this street with garlands and given it the name of a god. Then it would have gone quietly. But at last the street has grown tired of your tireless insolence; and it is bucking and rearing its head to heaven. Have you never sat on a bucking horse?"

Tremendous Trifles, A Somewhat Improbable Story (1909)

The substance of all such paganism may be summarised thus. It is an attempt to reach the divine reality through the imagination alone; in its own field reason does not restrain it at all. It is vital to the view of all history that reason is something separate from religion even in the most rational of these civilisations. ... The rivers of mythology and philosophy run parallel and do not mingle till they meet in the sea of Christendom. Simple secularists still talk as if the Church had introduced a sort of schism between reason and religion. The truth is that the Church was actually the first thing that ever tried to combine reason and religion. There had never before been any such union of the priests and the philosophers.

The Everlasting Man, Chapter V: Man and Mythologies (1925)

Once I thought like you, that one's pleasure in a flying spark was a thing that could come and go with that spark. Once I thought that the delight was as free as the fire. Once I thought that red star we see was alone in space. But now I know that the red star is only on the apex of an invisible pyramid of virtues. That red fire is only the flower on a stalk of living habits, which you cannot see. Only because your mother made you say 'Thank you' for a bun are you now able to thank Nature or chaos for those red stars of an instant or for the white stars of all time. Only because you were humble before fireworks on the fifth of November do you now enjoy any fireworks that you chance to see. You only like them being red because you were told about the blood of the martyrs; you only like them being bright because brightness is a glory. That flame flowered out of virtues, and it will fade with virtues.

Tremendous Trifles, The Diabolist (1909)

The whole pagan world set itself to build a Pantheon. They admitted more and more gods, gods not only of the Greeks but of the barbarians; gods not only of Europe but of Asia and Africa. The more the merrier, though some of the Asian and African ones were not very merry. They admitted them to equal thrones with their own; sometimes they identified them with their own. They may have regarded it as an enrichment of their religious life; but it meant the final loss of all that we now call religion. It meant that ancient light of simplicity, that had a single source like the sun, finally fades away in a dazzle of conflicting lights and colours. God is really sacrificed to the gods; in a very literal sense of the flippant phrase, they have been too many for him.

The Everlasting Man, Ch. 4 (1925)

21–22

I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years' work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear what He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line for when I said "Quite. In fact much too important to tackle at the end of a morning", the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind", he was already half way to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man's head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of "real life" (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all "that sort of thing" just couldn't be true. He knew he'd had a narrow escape and in later years was fond of talking about "that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safeguard against the aberrations of mere logic". He is now safe in Our Father's house.

The Screwtape Letters

21–22

[Addressing the "Life-Force philosophy" or "Creative Evolution" view, which attributes evolutionary progress to a purposive but impersonal force]

People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet 'evolved' from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the 'striving' or 'purposiveness' of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then 'a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection' is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind 'strives' or has 'purposes'? This seems to me fatal to their view.

Mere Christianity, Book 1, Chapter 4: What Lies Behind the Law

21–22

[On the self-defeating nature of denying all meaning in the universe]

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

Mere Christianity, Book 2, Chapter 1: The Rival Conceptions of God

For both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord, who is "the power and wisdom of God;" and the terror which the law begets is merciful and in order to salvation. "Let not alms, and faith, and truth fail thee, but hang them around thy neck." In the same way as Paul, prophecy upbraids the people with not understanding the law. "Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." "Professing themselves wise, they became fools." "And we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." "Desiring to be teachers of the law, they understand," says the apostle, "neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned."

The Stromata Book 1

But (as I have said) pardon may be granted to those who are ignorant and do not own themselves to be wise; but it cannot be extended to those who, while they profess wisdom, rather exhibit folly. I am not, indeed, so unjust as to imagine that they could divine, so that they might find out the truth by themselves; for I acknowledge that this is impossible. But I require from them that which they were able to perform by reason itself. For they would act more prudently, if they both understood that some form of religion is true, and if, while they attacked false religions, they openly proclaimed that men were not in possession of that which is true.

The Divine Institutes Book 2, Chapter III

They imagined that they were wise because they thought they had explored the natural sciences, investigating the courses of the stars and the quantities of the elements, while rejecting the God who made them. Therefore they are fools, for if these things are worthy of praise, how much more is their Creator!

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

For having some great conceit of themselves, and not enduring to go the way which God had commanded them, they were plunged into the reasonings of senselessness. And then to show and give in outline, what a rueful surge it was, and how destitute of excuse, he goes on to say,

Homily on Romans 3

They thought they were wise because they had “discovered” how the invisible God can be honored by means of a visible idol!

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

It is pride that turns man away from wisdom, and folly is the consequence of turning away from wisdom.

On Free Will 24.72

They increased their guilt by their claim, for in calling themselves wise they showed that in fact they were fools.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

How then did they come to such error, that in everything they relied on their own reasoning? Because they imagined themselves wise, which is why they became fools. For what is more foolish than worshiping stones and trees?

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says professing themselves he explains his statement. And first, how they became futile in their thinking, when he says professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Professing themselves, i.e., ascribing wisdom to themselves as of themselves: woe to those who are wise in their own eyes (Isa 5:21); how can you say to Pharaoh: I am the son of the wise, a son of ancient kings? Where now are your wise men? (Isa 19:11).

Second, he explains his statement that their foolish heart was darkened when he says they became fools to the point of acting contrary to divine wisdom: every man is stupid and without knowledge of his own on which he presumed (Jer 10:14).

Commentary on Romans

Heavens! to think of the dull rut of the sceptics who go on asking whether we possess a future life. The exciting question for real scepticism is whether we possess a past life. What is a minute ago, rationalistically considered, except a tradition and a picture? In that moment the universe and the stars swung just a hair's breadth from their balance, and the foundations of the earth were moved. But for the same reason that I believe in Democracy, for the same reason that I believe in free will, for the same reason that I believe in fixed character of virtue, the reason that could only be expressed by saying that I do not choose to be a lunatic, I continued to believe that this honest cabman was wrong.

Tremendous Trifles, The Extraordinary Cabman (1909)

Evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.

The Everlasting Man, Chapter I: The Man in the Cave (1925)

Henceforward, when the modern philosophers come to me with their new religions (and there is always a kind of queue of them waiting all the way down the street) I shall anticipate their circumlocutions and be able to cut them short with a single inspired word. One of them will begin, "The New Religion, which is based upon that Primordial Energy in Nature...." "Methuselahite," I shall say sharply; "good morning." "Human Life," another will say, "Human Life, the only ultimate sanctity, freed from creed and dogma...." "Methuselahite!" I shall yell. "Out you go!" "My religion is the Religion of Joy," a third will explain (a bald old man with a cough and tinted glasses), "the Religion of Physical Pride and Rapture, and my...." "Methuselahite!" I shall cry again, and I shall slap him boisterously on the back, and he will fall down.

All Things Considered, The Methuselahite (1908)

I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which were absolute sanctities to him (such as the quite unproved proposition of the independence of matter and the quite improbable proposition of its power to originate mind), and he at length fell back upon this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance and indignation: "Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?" I said, "With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman, Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Brunetiere—as many more as you please." To which that quite admirable and idealistic young man made this astonishing reply—"Oh, but of course they had to say that; they were Christians." First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: "All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count."

All Things Considered, The Error of Impartiality (1908)

The Renan-France method is simply this: you explain supernatural stories that have some foundation simply by inventing natural stories that have no foundation. ... It is no exaggeration to say that this is the manner of M. Anatole France in dealing with Joan of Arc. Because her miracle is incredible to his somewhat old-fashioned materialism, he does not therefore dismiss it and her to fairyland with Jack and the Beanstalk. He tries to invent a real story, for which he can find no real evidence. He produces a scientific explanation which is quite destitute of any scientific proof.

All Things Considered, The Maid of Orleans (1908)

Now, one of these four or five paradoxes which should be taught to every infant prattling at his mother’s knee is the following: That the more a man looks at a thing, the less he can see it, and the more a man learns a thing the less he knows it. The Fabian argument of the expert, that the man who is trained should be the man who is trusted would be absolutely unanswerable if it were really true that a man who studied a thing and practiced it every day went on seeing more and more of its significance. But he does not. He goes on seeing less and less of its significance. In the same way, alas! we all go on every day, unless we are continually goading ourselves into gratitude and humility, seeing less and less of the significance of the sky or the stones.

Tremendous Trifles, The Twelve Men (1909)

We ought not to overlook this passage. The apostle is not merely complaining about those who worship idols, but he should also be understood to be refuting the Anthropomorphites, who are found inside the church, who say that the bodily image of man is as such the image of God, ignoring the fact that it is written in Genesis that the whole person is created in the image of God, which must be understood as it is interpreted by the apostle, when he said: “You have put off the old man with his behavior and you have put on the new man, which is created according to God.” … Elsewhere Paul calls this the “inner man” and regards the corrupt bodily image as the “outer man.” … The mistake of those who think that it is this outer man which is the image of God is therefore obvious.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

These people have lowered to a body without soul or sense the identity of the One who gives to all sentient and rational beings not only the power of sentience but also of sensing rationally, and to some even the power of sensing and thinking perfectly and virtuously.

On Prayer 29.15

So blinded were their hearts that they altered the majesty of the invisible God, which they knew from the things which he had made, not into men but, what is worse and is an inexcusable offense, into the image of men, so that the form of a corruptible man was called a god by them, i.e., a depiction of a man. Moreover, they did not dare honor living people with this name but elevated the images of dead men to the glory of God! What great idiocy, what great stupidity, in that they knew they were calling them to their damnation, among whom an image was more powerful than the truth, and the dead were mightier than the living! Turning away from the living God they preferred dead men, among whose number they found themselves.They so diminished the majesty and glory of God that they gave the title of “god” to the images of things which were small and tiny. For the Babylonians were the first to deify a notion of Bel, who was portrayed as a dead man, who supposedly had once been one of their kings. They also worshiped the dragon serpent, which Daniel the man of God killed and of which they had an image. The Egyptians also worshiped a quadruped which they called Apis and which was in the form of a bull. Jeroboam copied this evil by setting up calves in Samaria, to which the Jews were expected to offer sacrifices. … By doing this, those who knew the invisible God did not honor him. They were unable to be wise in the things which are visible. For one who has problems with the big things will not be wise in the little things either.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

People like this make it hard to tell which was the more contemptible, the worshipers or the worshiped. Perhaps the worshipers by far, since as rational beings and recipients of God’s grace, they chose their inferior for patron and better.

Oration 28: on God 28.15

The first charge is, that they did not find God; the second was, that it was while they had great and clear (wise) means to do it; the third, that withal they said they were wise; the fourth, that they not only did not find that Reverend Being, but even lowered Him to devils and to stones and stocks. Now he takes down their haughtiness also in the Epistle to the Corinthians, but not in the same way there as here. For there it is from the Cross he gives them the blow, saying, "The foolishness of God is wiser than men." (1 Cor. i. 25.) But here, without any comparison, he holds their wisdom by itself up to ridicule, showing it to be folly and a mere display of vain boasting. Then, that you may learn that when they had the knowledge of God they gave it up thus treacherously, "they changed," he says. Now he that changeth, hath something to change. For they wished to find out more, and not bear with the limits given them, and so they were banished from these also. For they were lusters after new devices, for such is all that is Grecian. And this is why they stood against one another and Aristotle rose up against Plato, and the Stoics blustered against him, and one has become hostile to one, another to another. So that one should not so much marvel at them for their wisdom, as turn away from them indignant and hate them, because through this very thing they have become fools. For had they not trusted what they have to reasonings, and syllogisms, and sophistries, they would not have suffered what they did suffer. Then, to strengthen the accusation against them he holds the whole of their idolatry up to ridicule. For in the first place the changing even were a very fit subject of scorn. But to change to such things too, is beyond all excuse. For what then did they change it, and what was it which they invested with His Glory? Some conceptions they ought to have had about Him, as, for instance, that He is God, that He is Lord of all, that He made them, which were not, that He exerciseth a Providence, that He careth for them. For these things are the "Glory of God." To whom then did they ascribe it? Not even to men, but "to an image made like to corruptible man." Neither did they stop here, but even dropped down to the brutes, or rather to the images of these. But consider, I pray, the wisdom of Paul, how he has taken the two extremes, God the Highest, and creeping things the lowest: or rather, not the creeping things, but the images of these; that he might clearly show their evident madness. For what knowledge they ought to have had concerning Him Who is incomparably more excellent than all, with that they invested what was incomparably more worthless than all. But what has this to do with the philosophers? a man may say. To these belongs most of all what I have said to do with them. For they have the Egyptians who were the inventors of these things to their masters. And Plato, who is thought more reverend than the rest of them, glories in these masters. And his master is in a stupid awe of these idols, for he it is that bids them sacrifice the cock to Aesculapius where (i.e. in his temple) are the images of these beasts, and creeping things. And one may see Apollo and Bacchus worshipped along with these creeping things. And some of the philosophers even lifted up to Heaven bulls, and scorpions, and dragons, and all the rest of that vanity. For in all parts did the devil zealously strive to bring men down before the images of creeping things, and to range beneath the most senseless of all things, him whom God hath willed to lift up above the heavens. And it is not from this only, but also from other grounds, that you will see their chief man to come under the remarks now made. For having made a collection of the poets, and having said that we should believe them upon matters relating to God, as having accurate knowledge, he has nothing else to bring forward but the "linked sweetness" of these absurdities, and then says, that this utterly ludicrous trifling is to be held for true.

Homily on Romans 3

They did not understand that there is no similarity between the mortal and the immortal, the corruptible and the eternal.… Here Paul addresses the worshipers of Jupiter, who maintain that he was transformed into the likeness of animals and therefore dedicate to him images of the kind in which he satisfied his sexual desire.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Here the apostle has in mind the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians, all boastful of their renown for wisdom.

City of God 8.10

He who changes, before changing, has in himself something different. They too, then, had knowledge, but they destroyed it, and, having desired to have something different in place of what they had, they lost even what they had. They rendered the glory of the incorruptible God not to a man, but to an image of corruptible man, and, what is worse than this, they descended to creeping things, even to their images. To such a degree had they lost their minds! The knowledge that ought to have been held concerning the Being who incomparably surpasses all things, they applied to an object incomparably more contemptible than all things. And the "glory" of God consists in knowing that God created all things, provides for all things, and the rest that is fitting to Him. Who exactly erred in what has been said? The wisest of men, the Egyptians; for they worshipped even images of creeping things.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says and they changed the glory, he mentions the punishment for the gentiles' sin of ungodliness. First, in regard to sinning against God's glory; second, how they sinned against the truth of nature itself, at who changed the truth. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth the sin of ungodliness; second, the punishment, at wherefore, God gave them up.

Their sin, indeed, was that, so far as in them lay, they transferred divine honor to something else: my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit (Jer 2:11). First, therefore, he mentions what they changed; second, that into which they changed it, at into the likeness.

In regard to the first, three things should be noted on the part of God. First, his glory, which he mentions when he says and they changed the glory. This can be interpreted in two ways: first, as referring to the glory with which man gives glory to God by rendering him the worship of latria: to the only God be honor and glory (1 Tim 1:17). They exchanged this, when they paid to others the worship due to God. Second, as referring to the glory with which God is glorious, which is incomprehensible and infinite: he that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27). This glory, of course, is nothing less than the brilliance of the divine nature; for he dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). This glory they exchanged, when they attributed it to other things, for men gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood (Wis 14:21).

Second, his immortality is noted when he says incorruptible. For he alone is perfectly incorruptible who is entirely unchangeable; for every change is a form of ceasing to be. Hence, it is said: he alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16).

Third, he notes the sublimity of his nature, when he says God, for it is said: great is the Lord (Ps 48:1).

On the part of that into which they exchanged it, three corresponding things are mentioned. For in contrast to glory he says into the likeness of the image, i.e., for a likeness of something produced in the form of an image. For it is plain that the likeness in an image is subsequent to the thing whose image it is. But God's glory or brilliance is the principle of every nature and form; consequently, when they exchanged God's glory for images, they put the first being in last place: for a father consumed with grief made an image of his child, who had been suddenly taken from him (Wis 14:15). In contrast to immortal he says corruptible: what profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit? (Ps 30:9), i.e., what good is a dead thing? He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead (Wis 15:17). In contrast to God he says man: I will not show partiality to any man and I will not equate God with man (Job 32:21).

But what is more abominable, man exchanged God's glory not only for man, who is made to the image of God, but even for things inferior to man. Hence, he adds of birds, things that fly, and of fourfooted beasts, things that walk, and of creeping things, things that crawl. He omits fish as being less familiar to ordinary human life. Now all these things were put under man by God: you have put all things under his feet (Ps 8:8); go in and see the vile abominations that they are committing here. So I went in and saw; and there, portrayed upon the wall round about were all kinds of creeping things and loathsome beasts (Ezek 8:9).

It might be mentioned, as a Gloss says, that from the time of Aeneas' arrival in Italy, images of men were cultivated, e.g., Jupiter, Hercules, and so on. But after the conquest of Egypt during the reign of Caesar Augustus, the Romans took up the worship of animal images (on account of the figures of animals discovered in the sky), to which the Egyptians, given to astrology, rendered divine worship. Hence, the Lord himself instructed the children of Israel raised in Egypt against such worship, when he said: beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, you be drawn away and worship them (Deut 4:19).

Commentary on Romans

The details here seem to correspond to the faith of the church, in that for the above-mentioned reasons, for just cause those who in their wickedness suppress the truth revealed by God are abandoned by God, and because they are abandoned they are given over to the desires of their heart. The desires of their heart were that they should disgrace their bodies in uncleanness and abuse and that, with similar lack of discernment toward the worship of God, they should abandon the glory of the incorruptible God for the wicked and base forms of men and animals and think so little of themselves as to live like irrational beasts when in fact they were rational persons.To those who deny that the good God is also the just judge, we ask what they might say about these words of the apostle: “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” Therefore Marcion and all those of his school who have sprung forth like the offspring of serpents will not dare to touch the answers to these questions, even with the tips of their fingers. Due to this blunder they have already rejected the Old Testament, where such matters are commonplace. But what good did that do them? For they are no less discomfited by similar problems in the New Testament. But we, who say that the one good and just God of the law and prophets and Gospels is the Father of Christ, give the same explanation in the New as in the Old Testament, calling on him who has placed in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to reveal to us by the Holy Spirit his own offense and the scandal of the apostolic text, by which irresolute minds appear to be offended.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Paul says that because the Gentiles had deified relics and images of things, so as to dishonor the Creator God, they were given over to illusions. They were given over, not so that they could do what they did not want to do, but so that they could carry out exactly what they desired. And this is the goodness of God.To “hand over” means to permit, not to encourage or to force, so that they were helped by the devil to carry out in practice the things which they conceived in their lusts. For they never thought of doing anything good. Therefore they were handed over to uncleanness that they might willingly damage each other’s bodies with abuse. For even now there are men of this type who are said to dishonor each other’s bodies. When the thought of the mind is wrong, the bodies are said to be dishonored. Is not a stain on the body a sign of sin in the soul? When the body is contaminated, nobody doubts that there is sin in the soul.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Hence he shows, that even of the perversion of the laws it was ungodliness which was the cause, but He "gave them up," here is, let them alone. For as he that hath the command in an army, if upon the battle lying heavy upon him he retreat and go away, gives up his soldiers to the enemies not by thrusting them himself, but by stripping them of his own assistance; thus too did God leave those that were not minded to receive what cometh from Him, but were the first to bound off from Him, though Himself having wholly fulfilled His own part. But consider; He set before them, for a form doctrine, the world; He gave them reason, and an understanding capable of perceiving what was needful. None of these things did the men of that day use unto salvation, but they perverted to the opposite what they had received. What was to be done then? to drag them by compulsion and force? But this were not to make them virtuous. It remained then, after that, for Him to leave them alone, and this He did too, that in this way, if by no other, having by trial come to know the things they lusted after, they might flee from what was so shameful. For if any that was a king's son, dishonoring his father, should choose to be with robbers and murderers, and them that break up tombs, and prefer their doings to his father's house; the father leaves him, say, so that by actual trial, he may learn the extravagance of his own madness. But how comes he to mention no other sin, as murder, for instance, or covetousness, or other such besides, but only unchasteness? He seems to me to hint at his audience at the time, and those who were to receive the Epistle. "To uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."

Note the emphasis here, as it is most severe. For they stood not in need of any others, it means, to do insolent violence to them, but the very treatment the enemies would have shown them, this they did to themselves. And then, taking up the charge again, he says,

Homily on Romans 3

This means that God abandoned them to the desires of their own hearts. For Paul says that they got what they deserved from God.

On Romans 5

When the evil will receives power to accomplish its purpose, this comes from the judgment of God, in whom there is no unrighteousness. His punishment is carried out in this way as well as in other ways. It is not less just merely because it is hidden. The wicked man only knows that he is being punished when some manifest penalty makes him feel, against his will, the evil of the sin which he committed willingly.

The Spirit and the Letter 54

Many are left to themselves, to their own hurt.… A man that has asked for great wealth may have received it to his own hurt. While he was without it he had little to fear; as soon as he has possession of it he has become a prey to the stronger.

Homilies on 1 John 6.8

By “gave them up” Paul means that God permitted this to happen. He simply abandoned them because they had fallen into extreme ungodliness.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

The word "gave over" is used instead of "permitted," just as a physician treating a sick person, seeing that he neglects his diet and does not obey him, gives him over to a greater illness, that is, leaves him and permits him to follow his own will and thus not be freed from the illness. Some, however, understood the expression "God gave them over" as follows: He gave them over to the insult and insolence they had committed against God, just as we say: so-and-so was ruined by money, whereas money does not ruin, but the misuse of it does; or: Saul was corrupted by his kingdom, that is, by the misuse of his kingdom. Thus the pagans were given over to uncleanness by their own depravity, so that there was no need for others to dishonor them, but they themselves brought dishonor upon themselves; for such are impure passions. And for what were they given over to uncleanness? For having dishonored God; for whoever does not wish to know God is immediately corrupted in morality as well, as David also says: "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God," and then: "they are corrupt and have done abominable works" (Ps. 13:1).

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says wherefore, God gave them up he mentions the punishment for such a sin. Here it should be noted that man holds a place midway between God and the beasts and has something in common with both: with God, intellectuality; with animals, sensibility. Therefore, just as man exchanged that which was of God for what is bestial, so God subjected the divine in man, namely reason, to what is of the beast in him, his sensual desire, as it is stated: man cannot abide in his pomp (Ps 49:20), i.e., understand the likeness of the divine image in him through reason, he is like the beasts that perish. This, therefore, is why he says wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, so that their reason would be ruled by the desires of the heart, namely, lustful affections, about which he says below: make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences (Rom 13:14). But this is contrary to man's natural order, in which reason dominates the sense appetites: its desire is under you and you must master it (Gen 4:7). Consequently, he releases men to the desires of the heart as to cruel masters: I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a hard master (Isa 19:4).

It is chiefly with respect to the sense appetite that a certain bestial derangement is present in carnal sins. For the pleasures of touch, which delight gluttony and lust, are common to us and to beasts. Hence, they are more detestable, being more brutish, as the Philosopher says in Ethics III. This is designated when he says unto uncleanness, which refers to sins of the flesh, as is clear from Ephesians: every fornicator or impure man (Eph 5:5); because it is especially through such sins that man turns to and is drawn to what is beneath him. For a thing is said to be impure or tainted from being mixed with something base, as silver mixed with lead. Hence, in explanation he continues: to dishonor, by base and unclean acts, their own bodies among themselves, i.e., not as though compelled by others, for example, by savages, but they do this among themselves spontaneously. Below: has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vase for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9:21). Namely, for menial use.

But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13). The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one's first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.

To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin. Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.

It should be borne in mind, however, that sin as such cannot be a punishment, because we suffer punishment against our will, whereas sin is voluntary, as Augustine says. But because sin has certain features contrary to the will of the sinner, it is by reason of them that a sin is called a punishment of a previous sin. One of these features is something preceding the sin, as the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man sins. Another is something that accompanies the sin either interiorly, as that the mind is disarranged; hence Augustine says in Confessions I: you have commanded it, O Lord, and so it comes to pass that every disarranged mind is a punishment to itself; or in regard to its outward acts, which involve difficulties and labors, as sinners aver: we journeyed through trackless deserts (Wis 5:7). The third feature is something that follows the sin, such as remorse of conscience, bad reputation, and so on.

Commentary on Romans

These heretics, being the disciples of those mentioned, render such as assent to them worse than the heathen. For the former "serve the creature rather than the Creator," and "those which are not gods," notwithstanding that they ascribe the first place in Deity to that God who was the Maker of this universe.

Against Heresies Book 2

Otherwise, how vain that God should invite men to obedience by the fruits of the field and the elements of this life, when He dispenses these to even irreligious men and blasphemers; on a general condition once for all made to man, "sending rain on the good and on the evil, and making His sun to shine on the just and on the unjust!" Happy, no doubt, is faith, if it is to obtain gifts which the enemies of God and Christ not only use, but even abuse, "worshipping the creature itself in opposition to the Creator!" You will reckon, (I suppose) onions and truffles among earth's bounties, since the Lord declares that "man shall not live on bread alone!" In this way the Jews lose heavenly blessings, by confining their hopes to earthly ones, being ignorant of the promise of heavenly bread, and of the oil of God's unction, and the wine of the Spirit, and of that water of life which has its vigour from the vine of Christ.

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

That we must trust in God only, and in Him we must glory. In Jeremiah: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the strong man glory in his strength, nor let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understands and knows that I am the Lord, who do mercy, and judgment, and righteousness upon the earth, because in them is my pleasure, saith the Lord." Of the same thing in the fifty-fourth Psalm: "In the Lord have I hoped; I will not fear what man can do unto me." Also in the same place: "To none but God alone is my soul subjected." Also in the cxviith Psalm: "I will not fear what man can do unto me; the Lord is my helper." Also in the same place: "It is good to trust in the Lord rather than to trust in man; it is good to hope in the Lord rather than to hope in princes." Of this same thing in Daniel: "But Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, there is no need to answer thee concerning this word. For God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the furnace of burning fire; and He will deliver us from thine hand, O king. And if not, be it known unto thee that we serve not thy gods, and we adore not the golden image which thou hast set up." Likewise in Jeremiah: "Cursed is the man who hath hope in man; and blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and his hope shall be in God." Concerning this same thing in Deuteronomy: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." Of this same thing to the Romans: "And they worshipped and served the creature, forsaking the Creator. Wherefore also God gave them up to ignominious passions." Of this thing also in John: "Greater is He who is in you than he who is in this world."

Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

So far did their impiety go that they proceeded to worship devils and proclaimed them as gods, fulfilling their own lusts.

On the Incarnation of the Word 11

For the stars and the luminaries were given to men to shine upon them, but not for worship; although the Israelites, by the perverseness of their temper, "worshipped the creature instead of the Creator," and acted insultingly to their Maker, and admired the creature more than is fit. And sometimes they made a calf, as in the wilderness; sometimes they worshipped Baalpeor; another time Baal, and Thamuz, and Astarte of Sidon; and again Moloch and Chamos; another time the sun, as it is written in Ezekiel; nay, and besides, brute creatures, as among the Egyptians Apis, and the Mendesian goat, and gods of silver and gold, as in Judea.

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 5

They changed the truth about God into a lie. They gave the name of the true God to these things, which are false gods. Ignoring what rocks and wood and other metals really are, they attriubuted to them something which does not belong to them. The truth of God is turned into a lie when a rock is called God. This fact drove out the God who is true, and since true and false shared a common name, it was easy for the true God to be regarded as false. This is what it means to change what is true into falsehood. For those things were not called rock or wood, but God. This is to worship the creature rather than the Creator, which is what they did. They did not deny God but worshiped a creature as God. In order to justify this, they gave these things the honor due to God, so that their worship rendered dishonor to God. For that reason he hastened to punish them, because although they knew God, they did not honor him “who is blessed for ever. Amen.” This is true!

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Things which were matter for utter scorn, he puts down specially, but what seemed of a graver cast than the rest, in general terms; and by all he shows, that serving the creature is Grecian. And see how strong he makes his assertion, for he does not say, barely. "they served the creature," but "more than the Creator:" thus everywhere giving fresh force to the charge, and, by the comparison, taking from them all ground of mitigation. "Who is blessed forever. Amen." But by this, he means, He was not any whit injured. For Himself abideth "blessed for ever." Here he shows, that it was not in self-defence that He left them alone, inasmuch as He suffered nothing Himself. For even if these treated Him insolently, yet He was not insolently treated, neither was any scathe done to the bearings of His glory, but He abideth continually blessed. For if it often happen, that man through philosophy would not feel the insults men offered him, much less would God, the imperishable and unalterable Nature, the unchangeable and immovable Glory.

For men are in this respect made like unto God, when they do not feel what is inflicted by them who would do them despite, and are neither insulted of others who insult them, nor beaten of them when beating them, nor made scorn of when they make scorn of them. And how in the nature of things can this be? it may be said. It is so, yea most certainly it is possible, when thou art not vexed at what is done. And how, it may be said, is it possible not to be vexed? Nay rather, how is it possible to be vexed? Tell me now, if your little child were to insult you, would you then reckon the insult an insult? What, but would you be vexed? Surely not. But and if you were to be vexed, would you not then be ridiculous? Thus too let us then get to feel disposed towards our neighbors, and then we shall have no sense of displeasure. For they that insult us are more senseless than children. Neither let us even seek to be free from insults, but when we are insulted to bear them. For this is the only secure honor. But why so? Because this you are master of, but that, another person. Do you not see the adamant reverberating the blows it receives? But nature, you will say, gives it this property. Yet you too have it in your power to become by free choice such, as that happens to be by nature. How? do you not know that the children in the furnace were not burned? and that Daniel in the den suffered no harm? This may even now come to pass. There stand by us too lions, anger and lust, with fearful teeth tearing asunder him that falleth among them. Become then like that Daniel, and let not these affections fasten their fangs into thy soul. But that, you will say, was wholly of grace. Yes; because the acts of free-will led the way thereto. So that if we be willing to train ourselves to a like character, even now the grace is at hand. And even though the brutes be an hungered, yet will they not touch thy sides. For if at the sight of a servant's body they were abashed, when they have seen the members of Christ, (and this is what we believers are,) how shall they do else than be still? Yet if they be not still, it is owing to the fault of those cast among them. For indeed many spend largely upon these lions, by keeping harlots, breaking through marriages, taking vengeance upon enemies. And so before ever they come to the bottom of the den they get torn in pieces. (Dan. vi. 24.) But with Daniel this did not so happen, neither yet would it with us, if we were so minded, but even a greater thing would take place than what then happened. For the lions hurt not him; and if we be sober-minded, then will they that hurt us even profit us. Thus then did Paul grow bright out of those that thwarted him and plotted against him, thus Job out of the many scourges, thus Jeremy out of the miry pit, thus Noah out of the flood, thus Abel out of the treachery, thus Moses out of the bloodthirsty Jews, thus, Elisha, thus each of the worthies of old, not out of relaxedness and softness, but out of tribulations and trials, came to be attired with their bright crowns. Wherefore also Christ, inasmuch as He knew this to be the groundwork of a good report, said to His disciples, "In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John xvi. 33.) What then, they will say, Have not many been turned to flight by these terrors? Yes, but that was not of the nature of temptation, but of their own remissness. But He that "with the temptation maketh also an escape, so that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. x. 13), may He stand by all of us, and reach forth His hand, that being gloriously proclaimed victorious we may attain to the everlasting crowns, through the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom, and with Whom, to the Father be glory, with the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen.

Homily on Romans 3

The truth about God is that he is the true God. But human beings have made idols and falsely called them gods. They have transferred the truth of God to idols. In other words, they have changed what could rightly be said and thought about God into a lie by applying it to idols instead.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

For by worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator they have not wished to be a temple of the one true God. By wishing to have him along with many other things, they have been more successful in not having him at all than in having him along with many false gods.

Letter 187.29

Ungodliness is the root of wickedness. These people were deprived of God’s grace for both of these things.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Sun and moon are subject to change and variation, as is evident in an eclipse. This refutes the folly of those who worship the creature. Now, anything that is subject to change is not God, for by its very nature it is subject to corruption and change.

Orthodox Faith 2.13

They exchanged what in truth belonged to God and applied it to false gods. "Worshipped" (ἐσεβάσθησαν) is used instead of: paid honor (ἐτίμησαν). And "served" (ἐλάτρευσαν) is used instead of: rendered service by deeds; for λατρεία means honor rendered in deed. He did not simply say "worshipped and served the creature," but "rather than the Creator," magnifying the guilt by comparison. Nevertheless, he says, God is "blessed forever," that is, He suffered no harm whatsoever from their having dishonored Him, but is blessed forever — immovably and indubitably; for this is what "amen" means.

Commentary on Romans

Then, when he says, who changed the truth, he mentions the sin of ungodliness committed against the truth of the divine nature. First, he mentions the sin; second, the punishment, at wherefore, God gave them up.

The divine nature can be considered in two ways: in one way, as being the first truth. In this respect he says that they changed the truth of God into a lie. This can be taken in two ways: first, that they changed the true knowledge they received from God into false dogmas with their perverse reasoning; for example when they claimed that certain idols are gods or that God is not all-powerful or all-knowing: they have taught their tongue to speak lies (Jer 9:5). In another way, they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, because they attributed the nature of divinity, which is truth itself, to an idol, which is a lie, inasmuch as it is not God: our fathers have inherited nothing but lies; worthless things in which there is no profit. Can man make for himself gods? Such are no gods! (Jer 16:19).

The divine nature can be considered in another way as being the source of existence for all things though creation. Consequently, men owed him worship: inwardly, the worship of a pious love: if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, him he hears (John 9:31); outwardly, the service of latria: the Lord, your God, shall you adore and him alone shall you serve (Deut 9:13).

Then he continues, charging that they worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator. For they worshipped heavenly bodies and air and water and other such things: they supposed that fire or wind or swift air or the circle of the stars (Wis 13:2). With these words he censures the wise men of the gentiles who, although they never believed that anything divine was present in images, as the followers of Hermes believed, or that the fables created by poets concerning the gods were true, nevertheless paid divine worship to certain creatures, thus lending support to the fables. Thus, Varro supposed that the universe was God on account of its soul and taught that divine worship can be paid to the whole universe, namely, to the air, which they called Juno, to the water, which they called Liaeus, and to other things. Even the Platonists taught that divine worship was owed to all the rational substances above us; for example, to demons, to the souls of the heavenly bodies, and to the intelligences, i.e., the separated substances.

Now, although we should show some reverence to those above us, it should never be the worship of latria, which consists chiefly in sacrifices and oblations, through which man professes God to be the author of all good things. Similarly, in any kingdom certain honors are due the supreme ruler and it is not lawful to transfer them to anyone else.

And for this reason he adds who is blessed, i.e., whose goodness is evident, just as we are said to bless God, when we admit his goodness with our heart and express it orally: when you bless him, put forth all your strength (Eccl 43:30). He adds forever because his goodness is everlasting; it depends on no one else, but is the source of all good. For this reason the worship of latria is due him. He ends with amen to indicate absolute certainty: he who blesses himself in the land shall be blessed by the God of truth (Isa 65:16). Amen, i.e., it is true, or so be it.

It seems that the Apostle touches on the three theologies of the gentiles. First, the civil, which was observed by their priests adoring idols in the temple; in regard to this he says: they changed the glory of the incorruptible God. Second, the theology of fables, which their poets presented in the theater. In regard to this he says: who changed the truth of God into a lie. Third, their natural theology, which the philosophers observed in the world, when they worshipped the parts of the world. In regard to this he says: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator.

Commentary on Romans

It is the mark of religious forms that they declare something unknown. But it is the mark of worldly forms that they declare something which is known, and which is known to be untrue. When the Pope in an Encyclical calls himself your father, it is a matter of faith or of doubt. But when the Duke of Devonshire in a letter calls himself yours obediently, you know that he means the opposite of what he says. Religious forms are, at the worst, fables; they might be true. Secular forms are falsehoods; they are not true.

All Things Considered, A Dead Poet (1908)

Their only danger is that the idealist can easily become the idolator. And the American has become so idealistic that he even idealises money.

Tremendous Trifles, XXXI. The Riddle of the Ivy (1909)

The crux and crisis is that man found it natural to worship; even natural to worship unnatural things. The posture of the idol might be stiff and strange; but the gesture of the worshipper was generous and beautiful. He not only felt freer when he bent; he actually felt taller when he bowed. Henceforth anything that took away the gesture of worship would stunt and even maim him for ever. Henceforth being merely secular would be a servitude and an inhibition. If man cannot pray he is gagged; if he cannot kneel he is in irons.

The Everlasting Man, Chapter V: Man and Mythologies (1925)

I have always maintained, quite seriously, that the Lord is not in the wind or thunder of the waste, but if anywhere in the still small voice of Fleet Street. I sincerely maintain that Nature-worship is more morally dangerous than the most vulgar man-worship of the cities; since it can easily be perverted into the worship of an impersonal mystery, carelessness, or cruelty. Thoreau would have been a jollier fellow if he had devoted himself to a greengrocer instead of to greens. Swinburne would have been a better moralist if he had worshipped a fishmonger instead of worshipping the sea. I prefer the philosophy of bricks and mortar to the philosophy of turnips.

Alarms and Discursions, The Surrender of a Cockney (1910)

When Paul asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, he validates the natural way.

The Chaplet 6

Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error.

De Corona

This is the third time that the apostle uses the phrase “God gave them up.” Each time he gives reasons for this, but the reasons do not seem to correspond to the causes.… It is therefore better to take all three instances together and regard them as a single cause for the abandonment of men to their lusts.… And similarly, all of these lusts are found in every case of abandonment.… It seems that in these three points the apostle has enumerated every kind of godlessness—one group worships idols, another serves the creation instead of the Creator, and the third has refused to pay attention to God. The first group must be the pagans, the second group includes the wise men and philosophers, while in my opinion, the third group refers to the heretics who either deny God or utter different blasphemies against the Most High.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Would those so condemned not have remained in the lusts of their hearts, even if they had not been given up to them by God? Would they not have fallen into dishonorable passions, even if they had not been given up to them by God? Would they not have fallen into an unfit mind quite apart from being given up to it by God?

On Prayer 29.12

26–27

Oh, if placed on that lofty watch-tower you could gaze into the secret places-if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers, and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight,-you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do,-men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them. I am deceived if the man who is guilty of such things as these does not accuse others of them. The depraved maligns the depraved, and thinks that he himself, though conscious of the guilt, has escaped, as if consciousness were not a sufficient condemnation. The same people who are accusers in public are criminals in private, condemning themselves at the same time as they condemn the culprits; they denounce abroad what they commit at home, willingly doing what, when they have done, they accuse,-a daring which assuredly is fitly mated with vice, and an impudence quite in accordance with shameless people. And I beg you not to wonder at the things that persons of this kind speak: the offence of their mouths in words is the least of which they are guilty.

Epistle I

Paul tells us that these things came about, that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry. Those who interpret this differently do not understand the force of the argument. For what is it to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature, if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the sexes in a way for which it was not intended? Therefore, if this is the part of the body which they think it is, how could they have changed the natural use of it if they had not had this use given to them by nature? This is why he said earlier that they had been handed over to uncleanness, even though he did not explain in detail what he meant by that.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

26–27

All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that "they changed the natural use." For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, "They changed the truth of God for a lie." And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, "Leaving the natural use of the woman." And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature. But that which is contrary to nature hath in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical. Now when he was discoursing of their doctrines, he put before them the world and man's understanding, telling them that, by the judgment afforded them by God, they might through the things which are seen, have been led as by the hand to the Creator, and then, by not willing to do so, they remained inexcusable. Here in the place of the world he sets the pleasure according to nature, which they would have enjoyed with more sense of security and greater glad-heartedness, and so have been far removed from shameful deeds. But they would not; whence they are quite out of the pale of pardon, and have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more sense of shame than men. And here too the judgment of Paul is worthy of admiration, how having fallen upon two opposite matters he accomplishes them both with all exactness. For he wished both to speak chastely and to sting the hearer. Now both these things were not in his power to do, but one hindered the other. For if you speak chastely you shall not be able to bear hard upon the hearer. But if you are minded to touch him to the quick, you are forced to lay the naked facts before him in plain terms. But his discreet and holy soul was able to do both with exactness, and by naming nature has at once given additional force to his accusation, and also used this as a sort of veil, to keep the chasteness of his description. And next, having reproached the women first, he goes on to the men also, and says, "And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman." Which is an evident proof of the last degree of corruptness, when both sexes are abandoned, and both he that was ordained to be the instructor of the woman, and she who was bid to become an helpmate to the man, work the deeds of enemies against one another. And reflect too how significantly he uses his words. For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, "they burned in their lust one toward another." You see that the whole of desire comes of an exorbitancy which endureth not to abide within its proper limits. For everything which transgresseth the laws by God appointed, lusteth after monstrous things and not those which be customary. For as many oftentimes having left the desire of food get to feed upon earth and small stones, and others being possessed by excessive thirst often long even for mire, thus these also ran into this ebullition of lawless love. But if you say, and whence came this intensity of lust? It was from the desertion of God: and whence is the desertion of God? from the lawlessness of them that left Him; "men with men working that which is unseemly." Do not, he means, because you have heard that they burned, suppose that the evil was only in desire. For the greater part of it came of their luxuriousness, which also kindled into flame their lust. And this is why he did not say being swept along or being overtaken, an expression he uses elsewhere; but what? working. They made a business of the sin, and not only a business, but even one zealously followed up. And he called it not lust, but that which is unseemly, and that properly. For they both dishonored nature, and trampled on the laws. And see the great confusion which fell out on both sides. For not only was the head turned downwards but the feet too were upwards, and they became enemies to themselves and to one another, bringing in a pernicious kind of strife, and one even more lawless than any civil war, and one rife in divisions, and of varied form. For they divided this into four new, and lawless kinds. Since (whence) this war was not twofold or threefold, but even fourfold. Consider then. It was meet, that the twain should be one, I mean the woman and the man. For "the twain," it says, "shall be one flesh." (Gen. ii. 24.) But this the desire of intercourse effected, and united the sexes to one another. This desire the devil having taken away, and having turned the course thereof into another fashion, he thus sundered the sexes from one another, and made the one to become two parts in opposition to the law of God. For it says, "the two shall be one flesh;" but he divided the one flesh into two: here then is one war. Again, these same two parts he provoked to war both against themselves and against one another. For even women again abused women, and not men only. And the men stood against one another, and against the female sex, as happens in a battle by night. You see a second and third war, and a fourth and fifth; there is also another, for beside what have been mentioned they also behaved lawlessly against nature itself. For when the Devil saw that this desire it is, principally, which draws the sexes together, he was bent on cutting through the tie, so as to destroy the race, not only by their not copulating lawfully, but also by their being stirred up to war, and in sedition against one another.

Homily on Romans 4

Because of the reasons given above, they were abandoned to their disgraceful behavior. Those who turned against God turned everything on its head. For those who forsook the author of nature could not keep to the order of nature.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

God gave them up because that is what they wanted.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Again he says that God "gave them over to passions" because they served the creature. Just as in the doctrine of God they became corrupt, having abandoned the guidance of creation, so also in their life they became abominable, having abandoned natural pleasure (which is the most convenient and pleasant of all) and having given themselves over to unnatural pleasure (which is the most difficult and unpleasant of all). This is what the word "exchanged" means, which shows that they abandoned what they had and chose something else. Thus he presents nature, which they transgressed, as a great accuser of both sexes.

Commentary on Romans

Having set forth the sin of ungodliness, according to which they have sinned against the divine nature, he now sets forth the punishment whereby they have been reduced to sinning against their own nature. First, he mentions the punishment; second, he explains it, at for their women; third, its fittingness, at and receiving in themselves.

Therefore, he says for this cause, i.e., because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, God delivered them up not, of course, by impelling them to evil but by abandoning them to shameful affections, i.e., sins against nature, which are called passions in the sense that a passion implies that a thing is drawn outside the order of its own nature, as when water becomes hot or when a man becomes sick. Hence, because man departs from the natural order, when he commits such sins, they are fittingly called passions, as in Romans: the passions of sins (Rom 7:5). They are called shameful affections, because their acts are not worthy of man: it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret (Eph 5:12). For if sins of the flesh are shameful, because through them man is lowered to what is bestial in him, much more so are sins against nature, through which man sinks below the bestial: I will change his glory into shame (Hos 4:7).

Then when he says for their women he explains his statement. First, in regard to women; second, in regard to men, at and, in like manner, the men also. He says therefore first: the reason why I say that they have been given up to dishonorable passions is that their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. Does not nature itself teach you? (1 Cor 11:14); they have transgressed the laws, broken the everlasting covenant, i.e., the natural law (Isa 24:5).

It should be noted that something is against man's nature in two ways: in one way, against the nature of what constitutes man, i.e., rationality. In this way, every sin is said to be against man's nature, inasmuch as it is against right reason. Hence, Damascene says that an angel in sinning was turned from what is according to nature into what is contrary to nature. In another way, something is said to be against man's nature by reason of his general class, which is animal. Now it is obvious that according to the intent of nature, sexual union in animals is ordained to the act of generation; hence, every form of union from which generation cannot follow is against the nature of animal as animal. In line with this it is stated in the Gloss that the natural use is that a man and a woman come together in one copulation, but it is against nature that a man pollute a man and a woman a woman. The same is true of every act of intercourse from which generation cannot follow.

Commentary on Romans

It is clear that, because they changed the truth of God into a lie, they changed the natural use (of sexuality) into that use by which they were dishonored and were condemned to the second death. For since Satan cannot make another law, having no power to do so, it must be said that they changed to another order and by doing things which were not allowed, fell into sin.Paul says that the due penalty comes from contempt of God, and that it is wickedness and obscenity. For this is the prime cause of sin. What is worse, what is more harmful than that sin which deceives even the devil and binds man to death?

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.

"And receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." See how he goes again to the fountain head of the evil, namely, the impiety that comes of their doctrines, and this he says is a reward of that lawlessness. For since in speaking of hell and punishment, it seemed he would not at present be credible to the ungodly and deliberate choosers of such a life, but even scorned, he shows that the punishment was in this pleasure itself. But if they perceive it not, but are still pleased, be not amazed. For even they that are mad, and are afflicted with phrenzy while doing themselves much injury and making themselves such objects of compassion, that others weep over them themselves smile and revel over what has happened. Yet we do not only for this not say that they are quit of punishment, but for this very reason are under a more grievous vengeance, in that they are unconscious of the plight they are in. For it is not the disordered but those who are sound whose votes one has to gain. Yet of old the matter seemed even to be a law, and a certain law-giver among them bade the domestic slaves neither to use unguents when dry (i.e. except in bathing) nor to keep youths, giving the free this place of honor, or rather of shamefulness. Yet they, however, did not think the thing shameful, but as being a grand privilege, and one too great for slaves, the Athenian people, the wisest of people, and Solon who is so great amongst them, permitted it to the free alone. And sundry other books of the philosophers may one see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature: but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this were worse than any punishment. Yet if you say "they found pleasure in it," you tell me what adds to the vengeance. For suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully. But that I may show the atrocity in a yet clearer light, bear with me in one more example. Now if any one condemned a virgin to live in close dens, and to have intercourse with unreasoning brutes, and then she was pleased with such intercourse, would she not for this be especially a worthy object of tears, as being unable to be freed from this misery owing to her not even perceiving the misery? It is plain surely to every one. But if that were a grievous thing, neither is this less so than that. For to be insulted by one's own kinsmen is more piteous than to be so by strangers: these I say (I consider) are even worse than murderers: since to die even is better than to live under such insolency. For the murderer dissevers the soul from the body, but this man ruins the soul with the body. And name what sin you will, none will you mention equal to this lawlessness. And if they that suffer such things perceived them, they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil. For there is not, there surely is not, a more grievous evil than this insolent dealing. For if when discoursing about fornication Paul said, that "Every sin which a man doeth is without the body, but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body" (1 Cor. vi. 18); what shall we say of this madness, which is so much worse than fornication as cannot even be expressed? For I should not only say that thou hast become a woman, but that thou hast lost thy manhood, and hast neither changed into that nature nor kept that which thou haddest, but thou hast been a traitor to both of them at once, and deserving both of men and women to be driven out and stoned, as having wronged either sex. And that thou mayest learn what the real force of this is, if any one were to come and assure you that he would make you a dog instead of being a man, would you not flee from him as a plague? But, lo! thou hast not made thyself a dog out of a man, but an animal more disgraceful than this. For this is useful unto service, but he that hath thus given himself up is serviceable for nothing. Or again, if any one threatened to make men travail and be brought to bed, should we not be filled with indignation? But lo! now they that have run into this fury have done more grievously by themselves. For it is not the same thing to change into the nature of women, as to continue a man and yet to have become a woman; or rather neither this nor that. But if you would know the enormity of the evil from other grounds, ask on what account the lawgivers punish them that make men eunuchs, and you will see that it is absolutely for no other reason than because they mutilate nature. And yet the injustice they do is nothing to this. For there have been those that were mutilated and were in many cases useful after their mutilation. But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. How many hells shall be enough for such? But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration! And they know it well that have been at the place, and have seen with their eyes that scourge divinely sent, and the effect of the lightnings from above. (Jude 7.) Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time! For whereas many thought scorn of His words, by His deeds did God show them the image thereof in a certain novel way. For that rain was unwonted, for that the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable? Oh, what madness! Oh, what distraction! Whence came this lust lewdly revelling and making man's nature all that enemies could? or even worse than that, by as much as the soul is better than the body. Oh, ye that were more senseless than irrational creatures, and more shameless than dogs! for in no case does such intercourse take place with them, but nature acknowledgeth her own limits. But ye have even made our race dishonored below things irrational, by such indignities inflicted upon and by each other. Whence then were these evils born? Of luxury; of not knowing God. For so soon as any have cast out the fear of Him, all that is good straightway goes to ruin.

Homily on Romans 4

Once lust is unbridled, it knows no limit. In the order of nature, those who forgot God did not understand themselves either.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul did not say this lightly, but because he had heard that there was a homosexual community at Rome.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Having spoken in a veiled manner about women something shameful and such as is indecent to express clearly, he speaks also about men, that they "burned in their lust for one another," showing that they gave themselves over to licentiousness and frenzied love. He did not say they were "doing" desire, but "shame," showing that they outraged nature, and he said "burned in their lust" with the intent that no one would think that their disease was mere desire. "Doing what is shameful." That is, they zealously gave themselves over to impurity, committing it in actual deed, and received recompense for their departure from God and idolatrous error in this very shame and in this very pleasure, having in it, as something unnatural and full of impurity, punishment for themselves. And Paul says this because it was not yet possible to convince them of the existence of Gehenna. If, he says, you do not believe the teaching about Gehenna, then believe that the punishment for them consists in the very impure activity itself.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says and, in like manner, he explains in regard to males, who leaving the natural use of the women, have burned, i.e., lusted for something beyond the intent of nature: they blazed like a fire of thorns (Ps 118:12); and this in their lusts, i.e., carnal desires, men with men, working that which is filthy: I will uncover your shame before them and they will see all your baseness (Ezek 16:37).

Then he shows that this recompense suited their guilt, when he says, and receiving in themselves, i.e., in the deformation of their nature, the recompense which was due to their error, i.e., the error of exchanging the truth of God for a lie; the recompense which was due, i.e., the retribution they deserved to receive according to the order of justice, which required that those who insulted God's nature by attributing to creatures what is his alone, should be affronts to their own nature. Although recompense seems to imply something good, it is taken here for any retribution, even evil: the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23); all their wages shall be burned with fire (Mic 1:7).

It should be noted that the Apostle very reasonably considers vices against nature, which are the worst carnal sins, as punishments for idolatry, because they seem to have begun as idolatry, namely, at the time of Abraham, when idolatry is believed to have begun. That seems to be the reason why they are first recorded to have been punished among the people of Sodom (Gen 19). Furthermore, as idolatry became more widespread, these vices grew. Hence it is written that Jason founded a gymnasium right under the citadel, and he induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat (2 Macc 4:12), i.e., put them in brothel houses. Now this was not the beginning, but an increase and progression of the heathenish and foreign manners.

Commentary on Romans

But if all nations are blessed in Christ, and we of all nations believe in Him, then He is indeed the Christ, and we are those blessed by Him. God formerly gave the sun as an object of worship, as it is written, but no one ever was seen to endure death on account of his faith in the sun; but for the name of Jesus you may see men of every nation who have endured and do endure all sufferings, rather than deny Him.

Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXI

But what the learned among the Greeks have said concerning our polity and the history of our laws, and how many and what kind of men have written of these things, will be shown in the treatise against those who have discoursed of divine things. These things, O Greeks, I Tatian, a disciple of the barbarian philosophy,

For one and the same God [that blesses others] inflicts blindness upon those who do not believe, but who set Him at naught; just as the sun, which is a creature of His, [acts with regard] to those who, by reason of any weakness of the eyes cannot behold his light; but to those who believe in Him and follow Him, He grants a fuller and greater illumination of mind. In accordance with this word, therefore, does the apostle say, in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians: "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine [unto them]." And again, in that to the Romans: "And as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things that are not convenient." Speaking of antichrist, too, he says clearly in the Second to the Thessalonians: "And for this cause God shall send them the working of error, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but consented to iniquity."

Against Heresies Book 4

Wherefore it is the duty of a man of God, as he is a Christian, not to swear by the sun, or by the moon, or by the stars; nor by the heaven, nor by the earth, by any of the elements, whether small or great. For if our Master charged us not to swear by the true God, that our word might be firmer than an oath, nor by heaven itself, for that is a piece of heathen wickedness, nor by Jerusalem, nor by the sanctuary of God, nor the altar, nor the gift, nor the gilding of the altar, nor one's own head, for this custom is a piece of Judaic corruption, and on that account was forbidden; and if He exhorts the faithful that their yea be yea, and their nay, nay, and says that "what is more than these is of the evil one," how much more blameable are those who appeal to deities falsely so called as the objects of an oath, and who glorify imaginary beings instead of those that are real, whom God for their perverseness "delivered over to foolishness, to do those things that are not convenient!"

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 5

Because of the error of idolatry they were handed over to doing evil things with each other, as has already been said. And because they thought they could get away with it and that God would look the other way, and were therefore prone to neglect what they were doing, Paul adds here that they were more and more reduced to idiocy and became ever readier to tolerate all kinds of evils, to the point that they imagined that God would never avenge things which no one doubted were offensive to humanity as well. He now lists all the evils that were added to these, so that if they should be converted to normal reason, they might recognize that these evils befell them because of God’s wrath.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Lest he should seem to be hinting at them by delaying in his discourse so long over the unnatural sin, he next passes on to other kinds of sins also, and for this cause he carries on the whole of his discourse as of other persons. And as he always does when discoursing with believers about sins, and wishing to show that they are to be avoided, he brings the Gentiles in, and says, "Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the other Gentiles which know not God." (1 Thess. iv. 5.) And again: "sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." (ib. 13.) And so here too he shows that it was to them the sins belonged, and deprives them of all excuse. For he says, that their daring deeds came not of ignorance, but of practice. And this is why he did not say, "and as they knew not God;" but "as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" as much as to say, that the sin was one of a perverted determination of obstinacy, more than of a sudden ravishment, and shows that it was not the flesh (as some heretics say) but the mind, to the wicked lust whereof the sins belonged, and that it was thence the fount of the evils flowed. For since the mind is become undistinguishing, all else is then dragged out of course and overturned, when he is corrupted that held the reins!

Homily on Romans 5

Not only did they not know God, they did not want to know him.… So they were given over to a base mind.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Whoever follows the pernicious attractiveness of his lusts and tries to push aside those who would stop him heads straight into sin.

On Romans 6

If they had wanted to know him, they would have followed the divine laws. But because they denied their Creator, he stopped looking after them.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Paul does not say that God destroyed them because of their loathsome outrages. For God is not responsible for destroying anyone.… Paul says rather that God went away from them and left them to their own devices, so that their false understanding of God might appear to be the cause of their evil life.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Here, for the third time, he repeats the same thought and uses the same word, saying: "gave over." As the cause of their being abandoned by God, he everywhere presents the impiety of people, as he does now as well. "And even as they did not care to retain God in their knowledge, He gave them over" to passions. The offense they committed against God, he says, was not a sin of ignorance, but an intentional one. For he did not say: since they did not know, but says: "and even as they did not care," that is, they resolved not to retain God in their knowledge and voluntarily chose impiety. Therefore, their sins are not sins of the flesh, as certain heretics assert, but of wrong judgments. First they rejected the knowledge of God, and only then did God allow them to fall into a debased mind. To better explain the expression "God gave them over," some of the Fathers made use of an excellent illustration. They reason as follows: when someone, not wishing to see the sun, closes his eyes and then falls into a pit, we say that it was not the sun, which he did not see, that cast him into the pit, that the man did not fall into the pit because the sun cast him there in anger, but because it did not illuminate his eyes. And why did it not illuminate his eyes? Because he closed his eyes. So too God gave them over to shameful passions. Why? Because people did not know Him. And why did they not know Him? Because they did not consider and did not resolve to know Him.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says and as they liked not, he shows that they fell under a penalty of justice. First, he shows that previous sin brought them to these sins; second, he enumerates the differences among these sins, at being filled with all iniquity.

He mentions the preceding sin when he says and as they liked not to have God in their knowledge. This can be interpreted in two ways: in one way, that although they could have had true knowledge about God by the light of reason considering visible things, nevertheless, to sin more freely, they did not like to have God in their knowledge, i.e., they did not approve having God in their knowledge: they said to God: depart from us. We do not desire knowledge of your ways (Job 21:14). In another way it can mean that they did not acknowledge that God knows about human behavior: the Lord does not see: the God of Jacob does not perceive (Ps 94:7). According to this interpretation the punishment is shown to fit this sin, when he says God delivered them up to a reprobate sense.

Sense here does not mean man's external sense, by which sense-perceptible things are known, but the interior sense, according to which he judges his behavior: to fix one's thoughts on her, i.e., wisdom, is to have perfect sense (Wis 6:15). It is called a base sense, because it reached discommendable judgments about behavior: men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith (2 Tim 3:8); refuse silver they are called (Jer 6:30).

Therefore, he continues: to do those things which are not fitting, i.e., behavior not in accord with right reason: their works are useless (Wis 3:11). Yet it is fitting that those who sinned against knowing God either by refusing to acknowledge him or by thinking that they do not know him, should be given up to a perverse sense. That is why it is written: a just penalty always pursues the transgression of the unrighteous (Wis 14:31).

Commentary on Romans

I suddenly heard his voice again, but the words were inaudible. I stopped, startled: then I heard the voice of one of the vilest of his associates saying, "Nobody can possibly know." And then I heard those two or three words which I remember in every syllable and cannot forget. I heard the Diabolist say, "I tell you I have done everything else. If I do that I shan't know the difference between right and wrong." I rushed out without daring to pause; and as I passed the fire I did not know whether it was hell or the furious love of God.

I have since heard that he died: it may be said, I think, that he committed suicide; though he did it with tools of pleasure, not with tools of pain. God help him, I know the road he went; but I have never known, or even dared to think, what was that place at which he stopped and refrained.

Tremendous Trifles, The Diabolist (1909)

In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

The Problem of Pain, Ch. 8

Paul put wickedness at the head of the list, because he thought that evil and covetousness depended on it. He then added malice, from which flows envy, murder, strife and deceit. After this he put malignity, which generates gossip and slander.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

See how everything here is intensitive. For he says, "being filled," and "with all," and having named maliciousness in general, he also further pursues the particulars, and these too in excess, saying, "Full of envy, murder," for the latter of these comes from the former, as was shown in Abel's case and Joseph's, and then after saying, "debate, deceit, malignity;"

Homily on Romans 5

Paul shows that wickedness and evil are the chief causes of the vices. Envy is rightly linked to murder, since it is the chief cause of this crime. Strife exists when something is defended, not by reason but by a proud spirit. Deceit is secret malice covered in flattering speech. Malignity is a wish or a work of malice.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Notice how he intensifies the speech; he calls them filled, and moreover with "all" unrighteousness, that is, having reached the utmost degree of every vice. Then he enumerates the kinds of vice as well. By the name "fornication" he denotes every kind of impurity in general. "Wickedness" is treachery against one's neighbor. "Covetousness" is the desire for possessions. "Malice" is vindictiveness. Murder always comes from envy. Thus Abel was killed out of envy. And Joseph too they wanted to kill out of envy. From envy arise both strife and deceit, to the destruction of the one who is envied. "Maliciousness" is a deeply hidden malice, forgotten through some kindness.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says being filled, he enumerates these unbecoming actions. First, he describes their general state, saying being filled with all iniquity, because, as it is said: all sin is wickedness (1 John 3:4). For just as every virtue, inasmuch as it carries out a precept of the law, qualifies as justice, so every sin, inasmuch as it is at variance with the rule of the divine law, qualifies as wickedness. And so sins are particularly reprehended in the Sacred Scripture. He stresses their guilt in two ways: first, in its enormity, when he says filled. For that person seems to be filled with wickedness whose affections are totally dedicated to sinning: their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness (Ps 13:3). Second, in its extent, because they sin not in one matter only but in all: the worship of idols is the beginning and cause and end of every evil (Wis 14:27).

Then when he says malice, he enumerates their sins in detail. First, their transgressions which disobey negative precepts; second, their omission, which disregard affirmative precepts, at proud. Regarding the first he does two things: first, he mentions the sins by which a person deteriorates within himself; second, those by which he becomes harmful to his neighbor, at wickedness.

In regard to the first he describes the source of deterioration in general terms, when he says malice, which is a habit of vice opposed to virtue. Hence it is that a person who sins from habit is said to sin from malice: why do you boast of malice? (Ps 51:1). In regard to particulars, he mentions first the sin by which a person is disarranged in regard to the desire for bodily pleasures, when he says fornication. For although fornication, strictly speaking, is with prostitutes who offered themselves publicly near the fornices, i.e., the triumphal arches, yet here it is taken for any unlawful concubinage: beware, my son, of all fornication (Tob 4:12). Second, the vice through which a person is misaligned in his desire for external things, when he says, avarice, which is the untamed desire for possessing: keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have (Heb 13:5).

Then the sins which tend to harm one's neighbor are mentioned: first, wickedness, i.e., villainy, which inclines a person to attempt what he cannot accomplish. This happens especially in regard to harming one's neighbor, whom one does not always succeed in harming as planned: let the evils of the wicked come to an end (Ps 7:9). Second, he mentions the root of these sins, when he says full of envy, which consists in being grieved at another's good; as a result one is incited to harm the other: through the devil's envy death entered the world (Wis 2:24).

Then are mentioned the wrongs: first, the obvious ones that are deeds, when he says murders, which are the chief wrongs: there is swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and committing of adultery (Hos 4:2). He says murders in the plural because murder is present not only in the action but also in the will: anyone who hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15), i.e., who hates him to kill him. Second, the obvious ones that are words, when he says contention, which is an attack on the truth launched with the self-assurance of shouting: it is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife (Prov 20:3).

Then he mentions the covert injuries: first, one that is general, when he says deceit, i.e., when one thing is pretended and something else is done: their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully; with his mouth each speaks peaceably to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him (Jer 9:8). After these he mentions the inner root of these harmful deeds, when he says malignity, which implies an evil fire, i.e., ill will in the heart: they speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts (Ps 28:3); the Lord abhors deceitful men (Ps 5:6).

Commentary on Romans

Wherefore, although there have been found: some among our colleagues, dearest brethren, who think that the godly discipline may be neglected, and who rashly hold communion with Basilides and Martialis, such a thing as this ought not to trouble our faith, since the Holy Spirit threatens such in the Psalms, saying, "But thou hatest instruction, and castedst my words behind thee: when thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst unto him, and hast been partaker with adulterers." He shows that they become sharers and partakers of other men's sins who are associated with the delinquents. And besides, Paul the apostle writes, and says the same thing: "Whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, injurious, proud, boasters of themselves, inventors of evil things, who, although they knew the judgment of God, did not understand that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only they which commit those things, but they also which consent unto those who do these things." Since they, says he, who do such things are worthy of death, he makes manifest and proves that not only they are worthy of death, and come into punishment who do evil things, but also those who consent unto those who do such things-who, while they are mingled in unlawful communion with the evil and sinners, and the unrepenting, are polluted by the contact of the guilty, and, being joined in the fault, are thus not separated in its penalty. For which reason we not only approve, but applaud, dearly beloved brethren, the religious solicitude of your integrity and faith, and exhort you as much as we can by our letters, not to mingle in sacrilegious communion with profane and polluted priests, but maintain the sound and sincere constancy of your faith with religious fear.

Epistle LXVII

Because these things were displeasing to God, Paul says that they were hateful to God, and because they are also displeasing to men, he adds that they are insolent, haughty, boastful and inventors of evil, not just followers of it. For, becoming true imitators of their father the devil, they invented the evil of idolatry, through which all the vices in the world originated, as well as the greatest perdition. For the devil, whom Scripture says was a sinner from the beginning, although he gloried in his tyrannical presumption, never dared go so far as to call himself God. For among other things he says to God: “All these things have been given to me,” not: “All these things are from me.” In the book of Job the devil asks for power to be given to him, and in the prophet Zechariah he thinks that he can contradict the priest but does not claim power for himself. For this reason the idolaters are even worse, because they proclaim the divinity not only of the elements but also of imaginary things.They were seized with such insolence that they did not even acknowledge their parents, who had given them birth! They rejoiced in their children but despised those by whom they had come into being.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"Whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful," and classing things which to many seem indifferent among his charges, he further strengthens his accusation, going up to the stronghold of their wickednesses, and styles them "boasters." For even worse than sinning is it, even though sinning to be haughty-minded. Wherefore also he charges the Corinthians with it, saying, "Ye are puffed up." (1 Cor. v. 2.) For if in a good action he that puffs himself up loseth all, if any one do so among his sins, what vengeance is there of which he is not worthy, since such an one cannot repent any more? Next, he says, "inventors of evil things;" showing that they were not content with those already existing, but even invented others. And this again is like men that are full purposed and in earnest, not those that are hurried away and forced out of their course; and after mentioning the several kinds of maliciousness, and showing that here too they stood against nature itself (for he says, "disobedient to parents"), he then goes on to the root of the great pestilence, calling them,

Homily on Romans 5

The Scriptures link slander to idolatry by stipulating the same penalty for it—destruction. The haughty are those who want to be more than they are. The devil was like this, and so destroyed himself. For one who seeks to lord it over others will end up beneath them.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

"Slanderers" — secret whisperers. "Backbiters" — obvious revilers. "God-haters" — haters of God, or hated by God. "Insolent, boastful, proud" — he ascends to the stronghold of evils. For if one who takes pride in a good deed destroys it by pride, how much more does he destroy it when he does evil? Such a person is incapable of repentance. Know, then, that haughtiness is contempt of God, while pride is contempt of people, from which insult is born; for he who despises people insults and tramples upon all. Pride by nature precedes insult; but to us the insult first becomes apparent, and only afterward does its mother — pride — become known. "Inventive in evil" — for they were not content with the evil done before; from which it is again evident that they sinned not out of impulse, but deliberately and of their own disposition. "Disobedient to parents" — against nature itself, he says, they rose up.

Commentary on Romans

Then he mentions the covert wrongs that are perpetrated by words when he says whisperers, i.e., those who secretly whisper in men's ears to sow discord among them: curse the whisperer and deceiver, for he has destroyed many who were at peace (Eccl 28:15); detractors, i.e., persons who detract from another's reputation secretly, i.e., saying evil things about another without his knowing it: if a serpent bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage in a charmer (Eccl 10:11).

But lest these sins be regarded as trivial, because they are committed only by words, he adds hateful to God; for they mainly attack something that God loves in men, namely, mutual love: this is my commandment, that you love one another (John 15:12); hence it is said: there are six things which the Lord hates, and a seventh is an abomination to him (Prov 6:16), namely, a person who sows discord among brothers.

He adds contumelious, namely, those who insult another to his face: though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him (1 Tim 1:13). Thus he mentioned three vices that agree on one point, namely, they say something evil about one's neighbor. But they differ in their aim, for the whisperer intends discord, the slanderer ill repute, and the insolent injury.

Then he mentions the sins that involve omission: first, the root of these sins, when he says proud. They are called haughty, as though moving on a higher plane than they ought. On account of an unregulated desire for excellence, they wish to be first, refuse any rule outside themselves, and, therefore, ignore commands: the beginning of all sin is pride (Eccl 10:13), which is true, insofar as sin is a turning from God, but not insofar as sin is a turning to a perishable good. For it is stated: the love of money is the root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10).

Second, he describes the progress of pride. First, from it is born in the heart a boastful attitude, so that a person esteems himself above others: I am not like other men (Luke 18:11). Against those who over-esteem themselves it is said: my eyes are not raised too high (Ps 131:1). Second, from pride arises presumption to be new and different in behavior, to which he alludes, when he says inventors of evil things. For since good things have already been established by God and men, the result is that they devise new evils: their devisings are against the Lord (Isa 3:8).

Commentary on Romans

They were foolish and faithless and had no feelings either for God or for men. That is why they were heartless and ruthless. For someone who is cruel to his own family will be that much more cruel to others!

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"Without natural affection, implacable." For this Christ Himself also pronounces to be the cause of wickedness, saying, "When iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matt. xxiv. 12). This too St. Paul here says, calling them "covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful," and showing that they were traitors even to the gift of nature. For we have a sort of family feeling even by nature towards one another, which even beasts have got towards each other. "For every beast," it says, "loveth his like, and every man his neighbor." (Ecclus. xiii. 15.) But these became more ferocious even than they. The disorder then which resulted to the world by evil doctrines, he proves to us by these witnesses, and clearly shows that the malady in either case came of the negligence of them that were disordered. He shows besides, what he did in the case of the doctrines, that they were here also deprived of all excuse; and so he says,

Homily on Romans 5

Paul mentions all these sins, set out one by one, with respect to those who have been abandoned by God because they have abandoned him. Let us therefore take care, lest we also be abandoned for embracing one of these evils.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

"Senseless" — and rightly so. For how could those who did not obey their parents understand anything? "Faithless" — that is, they are not steadfast in agreements. "Unloving, implacable, unmerciful" — the root of all evils is the very cooling of love: for from this it follows that one does not make peace with another, one does not love another, one does not show mercy to another. About this Christ also said: "Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of many will grow cold" (Matt. 24:12). Nature itself unites us with one another, as it does other animals; but people have not understood this.

Commentary on Romans

Then the omissions are mentioned: first, in regard to authority; hence, in regard to parents he says disobedient to parents, contrary to what is commanded in Ephesians: children, obey your parents in the Lord (Eph 6:1). In regard to God's authority he says, foolish, i.e., acting contrary to God's wisdom: the fear of the Lord is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding (Job 28:28).

Second, he mentions a sin of omission relating to oneself, when he says dissolute in appearance and in gait: a man's attire and open-mouthed laughter and a man's manner of walking show what he is (Eccl 19:30). Some fall under this indictment, when their manner conflicts with the common customs of the people among whom they live.

Third, he mentions omission touching one's equals, toward whom we ought to have, first of all, affection in the heart; hence, he says without affection: the heart of the wicked is cruel (Prov 12:10); men will be lovers of self and not of others (2 Tim 3:2). Second, a man should live in social life with his equals, in contrast to which he says without fidelity; consequently, they do not live in society with others: they smote them with the edge of the sword (Judg 18:27ff.); woe to him that is alone when he falls and has no one to lift him up (Eccl 4:10).

Fourth, he mentions an omission affecting one's inferiors, when he says without mercy, which we ought to show to the desolate: judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy (Jas 2:13).

Commentary on Romans

I hope I am not being misunderstood. If this chapter leads anyone to doubt that the lack of "natural affection" is an extreme depravity I shall have failed. Nor do I question for a moment that Affection is responsible for nine-tenths of whatever solid and durable happiness there is in our natural lives.

The Four Loves, Chapter 3: Affection

Those who do such things are hateful to God—and not only those who do them but those who take pleasure in those who do them.

The First Epistle of Clement 35

And therefore the laws not only of the Church, but of the world, condemn those who are guilty of this crime; and not only those indeed who actually conspire, but those also who take part with such.

Such persons, therefore, are in all things to be guarded against, and are not to be received, because, according to the apostle, not only those who commit such things are condemned, but also those who consent with those who do them.

Perverted human tradition is the source of great evil for us, in that some sins are denounced while others are viewed with indifference. Crimes like homicide and adultery are the object of a violent but feigned indignation while others, like anger, reviling, drunkenness or avarice, are not considered deserving of even a simple admonition.

On the Judgment of God

Here again we see the innocence of God and the guilt of man and the justice of the judgment which is brought. For men do these things, not being unaware that they are worthy of punishment by God the judge. For it is clear that they are not unaware of this when they judge others and hand those who do such things over to death. For when evil men have knowledge of the good and make use of it as if they are not given over to pleasures, they bear witness that God’s creation is good.… But those who lead men into wrong, as well as those who follow what is wrong, are both evil.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Those who knew by the law of nature that God requires righteousness realized that these things were displeasing to God, but they did not want to think about it, because those who do such things are worthy of death, and not only those who do them but those who allow them to be done, for consent is participation. Their wickedness is double, for those who do such things but prevent others are not so bad, because they realize that these things are evil and do not justify them. But the worst people are those who do these things and approve of others doing them as well, not fearing God but desiring the increase of evil. They do not seek to justify them either, but in their case it is because they want to persuade people that there is nothing wrong in doing them.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death. not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Having assumed here two objections, he in the first place removes them. For what reason have you to say, he means, that you know not the things which ought to be done? At best, even if you did not know, you are to blame in having left God who instructs you. But as it is by many arguments we have shown that you do know, and transgress willingly. But are you drawn by passion? Why then do you both cooperate therewith and praise it? For they "not only do such things," he says, "but have pleasure in them that do them." Having then put the more grievous and the unpardonable sin first, that he might have done with it (for he that praiseth the sin is far worse than even he that trespasseth); having then put this the first, he by this method grapples more powerfully with him in the sequel.

Homily on Romans 5

Even people who did not agree with these doings … nevertheless seem to have accepted them, because they agreed to idolatry, which is the source and cause of them all.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

When Paul talks about the “judgment of God” he means the just recompense which God gives to everyone according to their deserts. For men know by their natural reasoning that transgressors will be punished by God, but instead of ceasing from their wicked ways they are actually pleased with those who do such things!… Therefore God will judge those who do such things as absolutely and without question worthy of death.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Whatever they had done they did without compulsion. For when they give their consent to evil deeds, they approve even of things which they did not do themselves.

On Romans 7-8

Those who do not admonish adulterers make us suspect that the reason for this failure of reproof is that they commit similar sins themselves.

Sermon 42.2

Having demonstrated that the pagans were filled with every vice because they did not wish to know God, he now proves that they deserve no excuse. They cannot say: we did not know what is good; for they knew that God is righteous. This means they do evil voluntarily, and, what is even worse, they approve of those who do it, that is, they patronize evil — which is an incurable disease.

Commentary on Romans

Then when he says who, having known the justice, he shows that they are deserving of God's anger or vengeance. In this regard there are three points to consider.

First, their naturalistic attitude, because although they knew that God is just and possessed of all other perfections, they did not believe that he would punish their sins: they say in their hearts: the Lord will not do evil (Zeph 1:12). This is why he says, who, having known the justice of God, did not understand.

Second, the punishment due to their sins, when he says, are worthy of death. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). For it is fitting that the soul which deserts God should be deserted by its own body through bodily death and in the end be deserted by God through eternal death: the death of the wicked is very evil (Ps 34:22); over such the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

Third, he considers those who deserve this punishment: first, they who do such things, i.e., the above mentioned sins: you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies (Ps 5:5–6). But not only they who do them, but they also who consent to those who do them. And this in two ways: in one way directly, by applauding sin: the wicked is praised in the desires of his heart (Ps 10:3), or even by offering advice and help: should you help the wicked (2 Chr 19:2). In another way, indirectly, by not objecting or opposing in any way, and especially when one is obliged by his office. Thus, the sins of his sons were imputed to Eli (1 Sam 3:13). In particular, this is directed against those gentile wise men who, even though they did not worship idols, did nothing to oppose those who did.

Commentary on Romans