Romans 9
Commentary from 24 fathers
That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
ὅτι λύπη μοί ἐστι μεγάλη καὶ ἀδιάλειπτος ὀδύνη τῇ καρδίᾳ μου.
ꙗ҆́кѡ ско́рбь мѝ є҆́сть ве́лїѧ и҆ непрестаю́щаѧ болѣ́знь се́рдцꙋ моемꙋ̀:
Since it appears that earlier he was speaking against the Jews, who thought that they were justified by the law, Paul now shows his desire and love for them and says that his conscience bears witness in Christ Jesus and in the Holy Spirit.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
2–3"That I have a great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ." What sayest thou, O Paul? from Christ, thy beloved One, from Whom neither kingdom nor hell, nor things visible nor intelligible, nor another world as great, would separate thee, is it from Him that thou wouldest now be accursed? What has happened? Hast thou changed, hast thou given over that love? No, he replies, fear not. Rather I have even made it more intense. How then is it that thou wouldest fain be accursed, and seekest a separation, and a removal to such a distance, that after it there is no possibility of finding a more distant one? Because I love Him exceedingly, he may reply.
How, pray, and in what manner? For the things seem a riddle. Or rather, if you will, let us learn what the curse is, and then we will question him upon these points, and shall understand this unspeakable and extraordinary love. What then is the curse? Hear his own words, "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed." That is, let him be set apart from all, removed from all. For as in the case of a thing dedicated, which is set apart for God, no one would venture so much as to touch it with his hand or even to come near it; so too with a man who is put apart from the Church, in cutting him off from all, and removing him as far off as possible, he calls him by this name anathema in a contrary sense, thus with much fear denouncing to all men to keep apart from him, and to spring away from him.
And the answer he does not produce forthwith, it being a useful thing not to do so, but he first stops the disputant's mouth, saying as follows, for he does not say, it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that it is presumptuous to raise them. For our business is to obey what God does, not to be curious even if we do not know the reason of them. Wherefore he said, "Who art thou that repliest against God?" You see how very light he makes of him, how he bears down his swelling spirit! "Who art thou?" art thou a sharer of His power? nay, art thou sitting in judgment upon God? Why in comparison with Him thou canst not have a being even! nor this or that sort of being, but absolutely none! For the expression, "who art thou?" doth much more set him at naught than "thou art nothing." And he takes other ways of showing further his indignation in the question, and does not say, "Who art thou that" answerest "God?" but, "that repliest against," that is, that gainsayest, and that opposest.
Homily on Romans 16
Because Paul intends to proceed against the Jews, he first assures them that he does not speak out of hatred for them, but out of love, for it pains him that they do not believe in Christ, who had come to save them as soon as possible.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
The construction here is incomplete. Paul should have added that his unceasing anguish was due to the rejection or unbelief of the Jews.
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
I have great sorrow, he says, consuming my heart at the thought of the Jews, that they are outside of grace; which is what he intends to speak about.
Commentary on Romans
Then he shows his affection for the Jews by the pain he suffered from their fall, when he says, that I have great sadness. First, he describes this pain; second, he mentions a sign of it, when he says, for I wished myself. He emphasizes how much pain he has suffered in three ways. First by its magnitude: that I have great sadness, because it concerns a great evil, namely, the exclusion of such a great people: vast as the sea is your ruin (Lam 2:13). But this seems to conflict with Sirach where it says, give not up your soul to sadness (Sir 30:22), which seems to agree with the opinion of the Stoics, who admitted no sadness at all in the soul of a wise man. For since sadness is a reaction to a present evil, it cannot exist in a wise man to whom no evil is present. For they supposed that virtue was the only good and sin the only evil. But this opinion is refuted in two ways. First, because bodily defects, although they are not such evils as make men evil, are nevertheless among the evils which nature abhors. Hence, even the Lord is described as saddened by them: my soul is sorrowful, even to death (Matt 26:38). Second, since charity requires that a person love his neighbor as himself, it is laudable for a wise man to grieve over a son of his neighbor as over his own. Hence the Apostle says: I fear that I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned (1 Cor 12:2). Thus, worldly sadness, which works death, springing from love of the world, is rejected, but sadness which is godly and springs from divine love works salvation (2 Cor 7:10). Such was Paul's sadness. Second, he emphasizes his grief by its duration, when he says, and continual sorrow; not that he never ceased to grieve actually, but habitually: that I might weep day and night for the slain of my people (Jer 9:1). Third, he emphasizes how real it was when he says, in my heart; for it was not superficial but rooted in the heart: my eyes are spent in weeping and my heart is poured out in grief (Lam 2:11).
Commentary on Romans
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
ηὐχόμην γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου, τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα,
моли́лъ бы́хъ сѧ бо са́мъ а҆́зъ ѿлꙋче́нъ бы́ти ѿ хрⷭ҇та̀ по бра́тїи мое́й, сро́дницѣхъ мои́хъ по пло́ти,
Why be surprised that the apostle desires to be cursed for his brethren’s sake, when he who is in the form of God emptied himself and took on the form of a servant and was made a curse for us? Why be surprised if, when Christ became a curse for his servants, one of his servants should become a curse for his brethren?
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
That Christ is God. In Genesis: "And God said unto Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place of Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to that God who appeared unto thee when thou reddest from the face of thy brother Esau." Also in Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord, the God of Sabaoth, Egypt is wearied; and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the tall men of the Sabeans, shall pass over unto Thee, and shall be Thy servants; and shall walk after Thee bound with chains; and shall worship Thee, and shall pray to Thee, because God is in Thee, and there is no other God beside Thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, our Saviour. They shall all be confounded and fear who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion." Likewise in the same: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every channel shall be filled up, and every mountain and bill shall be made low, and all crooked places shall be made straight, and rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, because the Lord hath spoken it." Moreover, in Jeremiah: This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed beside Him, who hath found all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob His son, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and He conversed with men." Also in Zechariah God says: "And they shall cross over through the narrow sea, and they shall smite the waves in the sea, and they shall dry up all the depths of the rivers; and all the haughtiness of the Assyrians shall be confounded, and the sceptre of Egypt shall be taken away. And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God, and in His name shall they glory, saith the Lord." Moreover, in Hosea the Lord saith: "I will not do according to the anger of mine indignation, I will not allow Ephraim to be destroyed: for I am God, and there is not a holy man in thee: and I will not enter into the city; I will go after God." Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: "Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness." Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: "Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name." Also in the Gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word." Also in the same: "The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." Also Paul to the Romans: "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israel-ires: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore." Also in the Apocalypse: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst." And again in the same place: "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men." But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God! Thus He Himself says in the Gospel according to John: "Is it not written in the law, that I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the word of God was given, and the Scripture cannot be relaxed, do ye say to Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? But if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, and ye will not believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "And ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us."
Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
Paul wished this at one time, before he became a follower of Christ.… But after he recognized the truth, he abandoned those whom he used to love in this way, yet still they do not repent.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
3–5Why the Apostle Paul writes in the same Epistle to the Romans: I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites, to whom the adoption belongs, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:3 et seqq.) Indeed, a valid question, how can the Apostle who said above: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? (Romans 8:35) And again: But I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39), now confirm under oath and say: I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: That I have great sadness, and continual sorrow in my heart. For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh. And so on. For if someone's love for God is so strong that he cannot be separated from His love, by neither the fear of death, nor the hope of life, nor persecution, nor hunger, nor nudity, nor danger, nor sword; and if Angels also, and Powers, both present and future, and all the Forces of heaven, and both the high and the deep, and every creature at once were to assail him, which cannot possibly be done: yet he would not be separated from the love of God, which he has in Christ Jesus: what is this great change, rather unheard-of prudence, that for the love of Christ, he would not want to have Christ? And lest we do not believe him, he swears and confirms in Christ, and calls his conscience as a witness, the Holy Spirit, that he has sadness, not light or casual, but great and unbelievable, and has sorrow in his heart, which does not sting for an hour and pass, but which continually remains in his heart. Where does this sadness lead? What profit is there in unceasing pain? Is it wished to be anathema from Christ, and to perish, so that others may be saved? But if we consider the voice of Moses asking God for the people of the Jews, and saying, "If thou wilt forgive them their sin, forgive; but if not, blot me out of thy book, which thou hast written" (Exod. 32. 31. 32), we will see the same feelings in Moses and Paul towards the flock entrusted to them. For a good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. But a hireling, who is not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and flees. And to say this same thing: I wished to be cursed by Christ; and erase me from your book which you have written. For those who are erased from the book of the living, and are not written with the just, are made anathema by the Lord. At the same time, see how great is the love of the Apostle for Christ, that he desires to die for him, and to perish alone, provided that the whole human race believes in him. To perish, however, not forever, but for the present. For whoever shall lose his life for Christ, shall save it (Matt. 10:39). Hence, he takes as an example the Forty-Third Psalm: For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter (Ps. 43:22). Therefore, the Apostle wishes to die in the flesh, so that others may be saved in the spirit; to pour out his blood so that many souls may be preserved. However, that anathema sometimes signifies slaying can be proved by many testimonies of the Old Testament. And lest we think the grief to be slight, and the cause of sorrow small, he joins it and says: For my brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh. When he calls them kinsmen and brethren according to the flesh, he shows that they are strangers to him in spirit. Whose adoption," he says, "is signified more significantly in Greek as ὑιοθεσία; these things were spoken of by the Lord: 'You are my firstborn son, Israel,' and 'I have begotten sons and exalted them' (Isaiah 1:2), but now he says, 'Alien sons have lied to me' (Psalm 17:46). And their glory is that they were chosen from all nations to be a special people of God, and their covenants, one in the letter and the other in the spirit, meant that those who once served ceremonies of the abolished Law in the flesh would afterwards serve in the spirit the commands of the eternal Gospel. And the law addresses both the new and the old Testament. And worship, that is, true religion. And promises; to fulfill whatever was promised to the fathers in their descendants. And (which is greater than all) from whom Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. And in order that we might know who this Christ is, he embraces the causes of his pain in one speech, who is blessed above all God forever, amen. And this great and such, is not received from those from whom he was born. And nevertheless, he praises the truth of judgement, so that the sentence of God may not seem displeasing to his kindred and brothers, and be either austere or excessive. In which, therefore, such great goods were present, he laments why so many evils are present now.
Letter 121, Chapter 9
First learn what anathema is. It is separation, alienation. Just as no one dares to touch a gift dedicated to God, so too with the one who is anathematized, only with a different feeling. No one dares to approach the sacred gift out of reverence, as something consecrated to God, while with the anathematized person everyone severs ties, as with one who is defiled and estranged from God. What then does Paul mean by what he says? He seems to be saying here the opposite of what was spoken of above. There he said that nothing shall separate us from the love of God, but here he says that he could wish to be separated from Christ. He seems to contradict what was said before; but in reality he does not. Here too he expresses his wish to be separated from Christ out of love for God. Everyone was accusing God of having cast out and dishonored the Jews, who had been deemed worthy of adoption, who had enjoyed special glory and were called the ancestors of Christ, and of having brought in their place people who had never known God — the Gentiles — and they were murmuring and blaspheming Providence, as though this were done unjustly and God had deceived the forefathers to whom He had promised gifts. For this reason Paul was in anguish, grieving for the glory of God, and wished himself to be separated, if only the Jews might be saved and their blasphemy against God might cease. Do you see that out of fervent love for God he desires, if possible, to be separated from the company of those who live eternally with Christ — not from His love, but from His glory and the enjoyment of it? So too fathers often separate themselves from their sons so that the sons may be glorified, by no means estranging themselves from love for their sons, but desiring themselves to be in dishonor so that they may become glorious. Thus the apostle reasons: I, who have accomplished countless labors and who love God beyond measure, desire for the glory of God to be deprived of the glory of Christ. But this does not mean to lose, but rather to gain. With the words "for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh," he indicates his most tender and fervent love for the Jews.
Commentary on Romans
Then he presents the sign of his sadness, saying, for I, who am so fervent in the love of Christ, as was shown above, wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren. Here it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word formed by combining ana which means 'above' and thesis which means 'placing,' so that something placed above is said to be anathema. For when they found among the spoils of war something they did not wish men to use, they hung it in the temple. From this, the custom arose that things cut off from the common use of men were said to be anathema; hence, it says in Joshua: let this city be anathema, and all things that are in it, to the Lord (Josh 6:17). He says, therefore: for I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, i.e., separated from him. One is separated from Christ in two ways. In one way by a sin, through which one is separated from the love of Christ for not obeying his commandment: if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). But the Apostle could not wish to be separated from Christ in this way for any reason, as is clear from what was said above (Rom 8:35). For this is against the order of charity, by which a person is bound to love God above all things and his own salvation more than that of others. So he does not say, I wish, but, I wished, during his days of unbelief. But according to this explanation the Apostle is not saying anything great, because in those days he was willing to be separated from Christ even for himself. Hence, a Gloss explains that he says, I have great sadness, referring to the sorrow with which he grieved over his past state of sin, during which he willed to be separated from Christ. In another way one can be separated from Christ, i.e., from the fruition of Christ possessed in glory. This is the way the Apostle wished to be separated from Christ, for the salvation of the gentiles, not to mention the conversion of the Jews. For he says in Philippians: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account (Phil 1:23). This he now says: I wished, namely, if it were possible, to be an anathema, i.e., separated from glory either absolutely or temporarily from Christ's honor, which would be enhanced by the conversion of the Jews, as it says in Proverbs: in the multitude of the people is the dignity of the king (Prov 14:28). Hence, Chrysostom says: love so ruled his mind that to please Christ he would not only sacrifice being with Christ, which he deemed more desirable than anything else, but also the kingdom of heaven, which would be the reward of his labor for Christ. The cause of this attitude is shown when he says: for my brethren. Hence Sirach says: three things are approved before God and men: the concord of brethren, the love of neighbors, and a wife and husband who live in harmony (Sir 25:1). Then to show that he was not referring to those who were his spiritual brethren in Christ, he adds: and all you are brethren, adding who are my kinsmen according to the flesh: are they descendants of Abraham? So am I (2 Cor 11:22).
Commentary on Romans
Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι,
и҆̀же сꙋ́ть і҆и҃лїте, и҆́хже всн҃овле́нїе и҆ сла́ва, и҆ завѣ́ти и҆ законоположе́нїе, и҆ слꙋже́нїе и҆ ѡ҆бѣтова̑нїѧ:
For although the Jew withal be called "a son," and an "elder one," inasmuch as he had priority in adoption; although, too, he envy the Christian the reconciliation of God the Father,-a point which the opposite side most eagerly catches at,-still it will be no speech of a Jew to the Father: "Behold, in how many years do I serve Thee, and Thy precept have I never transgressed.
On Modesty
Israel was adopted by God and given the sonship: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God; for the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”“The covenants” and “the giving of the law” seem to be much the same thing. But I think there is this difference between them, that the law was given once, by Moses, but covenants were given frequently. For every time the people sinned and were cast down, they were disinherited. And every time God was propitiated and he called them back to the inheritance of their possession, he renewed the covenants and declared them to be heirs once more. “The worship” refers to the priestly sacrifices. “The promises” are those which were made to the patriarchs and which are given to all who are called children of Abraham.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
4–5"To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father's, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
And what is this? one asks. For if with a view to the belief of others he was willing to become accursed, he ought to have also wished for this in the Gentiles' behalf. But in fact if he had prayed for the Gentiles only, this would not have been equally clear. But since it is for the Jews only, it is a clear proof that it is only for Christ's glory that he is thus earnest.
For what he means is something of this kind: all were talking and accusing God, that after being counted worthy of the name of sons, and receiving the Law, and knowing Him beyond all men, and enjoying such great glory, and serving him beyond the whole world, and receiving the promises, and being from fathers who were His friends, and what was the greatest thing of all, having been forefathers of Christ Himself (for this is the meaning of the words, "of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came"), they are now cast out and disgraced; and in their place are introduced men who had never known Him, of the Gentiles. Now since they said all this, and blasphemed God, Paul hearing it, and being cut to the heart, and vexed for God's glory's sake, wished that he were accursed, had it been possible, so that they might be saved, and this blasphemy be put a stop to, and God might not seem to have deceived the offspring of those to whom He promised the gifts.
Homily on Romans 16
“The sonship” belongs to the Jews, for of them it was said: “Israel, my firstborn son.” They had the old law and the promise of the new law.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
Here he praises and exalts the Jews, so that no one, as I said, would think he speaks in great agitation of spirit. He subtly expresses that God desired their salvation as well. This is evident from the fact that He deemed them worthy of adoption and glory, gave promises to their fathers, furnished them with all other advantages, and willed that Christ be born from them.
Commentary on Romans
Then, when he says who are Israelites, he shows the greatness of the Jews in order that his sadness appear reasonable on account of the ancient dignity of a deteriorating people, for it is a weightier evil to lose greatness than never to have possessed it, as the Gloss says, and not as though it arose solely from worldly love. But he shows their greatness in three ways. First, from their race when he says, who are Israelites, i.e., descending from the stock of Jacob who was called Israel (Gen 32:28). This pertains to their greatness, for it is said: neither is there any nation so great as to have their gods coming to them (Deut 4:7). Second, he shows the greatness of that race from God's blessings: first, the spiritual blessings, one of which refers to the present: to whom belongs the adoption of sons of God. Hence it says in Exodus: Israel is my son, my firstborn (Exod 4:22). This refers to the spiritual men who arose among that people: but as to worldly men he stated above that they received the spirit of slavery in fear (Rom 8:15). Another spiritual blessing refers to the future when he says, the glory, namely, of the sons of God promised to them. A reference to this is found in Exodus: the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Exod 40:32). Then he sets out other, figural benefits, of which three are figures of present spiritual benefit. The first of these is the testament, i.e., the pact of circumcision given to Abraham, as is recorded in Genesis 17, although this could be referred to the new covenant preached first to the Jews. Hence, the Lord himself said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24); and Jeremiah: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel (Jer 31:31). The second is the law given through Moses; hence, he continues: the giving of the law: Moses commanded a law to us (Sir 24:33). The third is divine worship when he says: the service with which they served God, when all the other nations were serving idols: but now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen (Isa 44:1). Then he mentions the blessing which pertains to future glory when he says: and the promises. For the promises made in the Old Testament and fulfilled by Christ seem made especially to the Jews; hence he says below: I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs (Rom 15:8). Now many other promises were made to them about earthly goods, as is recorded in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 18, but by these temporal goods spiritual things were prefigured.
Commentary on Romans
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.
и҆́хже ѻ҆тцы̀, и҆ ѿ ни́хже хрⷭ҇то́съ по пло́ти, сы́й над̾ всѣ́ми бг҃ъ блгⷭ҇ве́нъ во вѣ́ки, а҆ми́нь.
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. [Romans 9:5] From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will.
Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)
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
Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of Christ in this point alone (to name no more, not to delay my own course), that he suffered persecution at the hands of his brethren, and was sold into Egypt, on account of the favour of God; just as Christ was sold by Israel-(and therefore, ) "according to the flesh," by His "brethren" -when He is betrayed by Judas.
An Answer to the Jews
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." For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam.
Against Praxeas
Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; " and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed Almighty by the Father. And in like manner Paul also, in setting forth the truth that all things are delivered unto Him, said, "Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For all things are put under Him. But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. Then shall He also Himself be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, He is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him, that in all there might be manifested one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father hath made all things subject, with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For He speaks thus: "I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." If then, Noetus ventures to say that He is the Father Himself, to what father will he say Christ goes away according to the word of the Gospel? But if he will have us abandon the Gospel and give credence to his senselessness, he expends his labour in vain; for "we ought to obey God rather than men."
Dogmatical and Historical Fragments
It is clear from this passage that Christ is the “God who is over all.” The one who is over all has nothing over him, for Christ does not come after the Father but from the Father. The Holy Spirit is also included in this, as it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord fills the earth, and whoever contains all things knows every sound.” So if the Son is God over all and the Spirit is recorded as containing all things, it is clear that the nature and substance of the Trinity are shown to be one and over all things.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Of the gods, but which teaches us the wondrous condescension to us men of the awful glory of Him who is God over all.
Paul lists so many indications of the nobility and dignity of the Jewish people and of the promises they received in order to deepen his grief for all these things, because by not accepting the Savior they lost the privilege of their fathers and the merit of the promises, and they became worse than the Gentiles, whom they had previously detested when they were without God. For it is a worse evil to lose a dignity than never to have had it.As there is no mention of the Father’s name in this verse and Paul is talking about Christ, it cannot be disputed that he is called God here. For if Scripture is speaking about God the Father and adds the Son, it often calls the Father God and the Son Lord. If someone does not think that it is said here about Christ that he is God, then let him name the person about whom he thinks it is said, for there is no mention of God the Father in this verse.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
The patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Paul writes here against the Manicheans, Photinus and Arius because Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, and God, blessed forever.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
The Jews, who held only the first part of this confession, are refuted by the Lord. For when he asked them whose son they said Christ was, they answered “David’s.” This is true according to the flesh. But concerning his divinity … they answered nothing. Therefore the Lord said to them: “Why did David, in the Spirit, call him Lord?” in order that they might realize that they had only confessed that Christ is the son of David and had not said that Christ is Lord of this same David. The first fact is true according to his assumption of flesh, the other accordingto the eternity of his divinity.
On Romans 59
God chose Israel for himself from the beginning, which is why he called it the firstborn. But the Israelites fell because they were proud, wicked and, worst of all, murderers of their Lord. Therefore they perished, for they were rejected and abandoned and excluded from God’s company, placed behind even the Gentiles and cut off from the hope promised to their ancestors.
Explanation of the Letter to the Romans
But they themselves rejected the benefaction. Therefore, marveling at the love of God, he sends up thanksgiving to the Only-Begotten and says: "God over all, blessed forever." Although others argue that the reception of the Gentiles was not well-founded, we, knowing the mysteries of Christ, know that He is worthy of glorification. At this, Arius should be put to shame, because Paul calls Christ God over all.
Commentary on Romans
Third, he describes the Jews' dignity by their origin, when he says, whose fathers, because they were begotten according to the flesh by those ancestors who were especially acceptable to God: I love your fathers and chose their descendants after them (Deut 4:37); like the first fruit on the fig tree I saw their fathers (Hos 9:1). Fourth, he shows their greatness from a descendant when he says, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh who says: salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22). Then to prevent this from being underestimated he shows the greatness of Christ, saying: who is over all things, God blessed forever. Amen: this is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20). In these words four heresies are refuted: first, Manichean, which held that Christ had not a true but imaginary body. This is refuted when he says, according to the flesh. For he has true flesh, as it says in Luke: a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have (Luke 24:39). Second, Valentinus' heresy which claims that Christ's body was not taken from the human line but brought from heaven. This is excluded when he says that Christ was from the Jews according to the flesh, in keeping with Matthew: the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt 1:1). Third, the heresy of Nestorius according to whom the Son of man was other than the Son of God. Against this the Apostle says here that whose fathers and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God. Fourth, the Arian heresy, which claimed that Christ was less than the Father and created from nothing. Against the first he says that he is over all things; against the second that he is blessed forever. For it is true of God alone that his goodness remains forever.
Commentary on Romans
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ,
[Заⷱ҇ 101] Не та́коже, ꙗ҆́кѡ ѿпадѐ сло́во бж҃їе: не вси́ бо сꙋ́щїи ѿ і҆и҃лѧ, сі́и і҆и҃ль,
Because the promises which had been given to the Jews had been transferred to the Gentiles, Paul wanted to avoid the charge that God had lied about his promises, and so he shows how God remains faithful. The Scriptures make it clear that it was not those who were Israelites according to the flesh but those who by their godliness showed that they were worthy to be Israelites who were called children of Abraham.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
"Not as though the word of God had taken none effect." To show that he had courage to bear all these things for the word of God, that is, the promise made to Abraham. For as Moses seemed to be pleading for the Jews, yet was doing everything for God's glory (for he says, "Lest they say, Because He was not able to save them, He led them forth to destroy them in the wilderness"; stay Thy wrath), so also does Paul, That they may not say (he means) that the promise of God has fallen to the ground, and He has disappointed us of that. He vouched to us, and this word has not issued in deed, I could wish to be accursed.
This then was why he did not speak of the Gentiles (for to them no promises had been made by Him, nor had they worshipped Him, wherefore neither did any blaspheme Him on their account), but it was for the Jews who had both received the promise, and had also been brought into closer connection with Him than others, that he expressed this wish.
Homily on Romans 16
Since Paul has said above that he is upset that the people of Israel had been shut out of the kingdom by their own fault, for all these things had belonged to them, he shows here that those who do not believe are not sons of Abraham, lest someone think that he was opposed to all Jews and retort: “Did God then lie to Abraham?”
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
I, he says, am inflamed by the fact that God is blasphemed, and therefore expressed the desire that all be saved. But if not all are saved, it does not follow from this that God lied in the promises given to the fathers, and that His word did not come true. He fulfilled what was promised, even though the blasphemers say that He promised to some and gave to others.
Commentary on Romans
After asserting the greatness of the Jews, the Apostle now shows that it did not refer to those who descended according to the flesh from the ancient patriarchs but to the spiritual progeny chosen by God. First, he shows that this greatness arises from God's selection; second, that this selection applies generally to Jew and gentiles, at even us, whom also he has called (Rom 9:24). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how from God's choice men obtain spiritual greatness; second, he raises a question about the justice of God's choice, at what shall we say then? (Rom 9:14). In regard to the first he does two things: First, he states his proposition; second, shows it, at but in Isaac. Concerning the first, he does two things. First he sets out the firmness of the divine election; second, he shows in whom it is accomplished, at for all are not Israelites. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the promises, the adoption of sons, and glory referred to people whose fall is to me a source of great sadness and unceasing sorrow. But it is not as though the word of God has failed, i.e., was frustrated, because although it has found no place in those who had fallen, it has a place in others: the word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose (Isa 55:11); forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed (Ps 119:89). Then he shows how and in whom God's word has failed, when he says for all are not Israelites. In regard to this it should be noted that the Jews boasted mainly of two things, namely, Abraham, who first received the pact of circumcision from God (Gen 17) and Jacob or Israel, all of whose descendants were counted as God's people. This was not true of Isaac, for the descendants of his son Esau did not belong to God's people. Hence the Apostle states his proposition: first, by a comparison with Jacob: for all are not Israelites who are of Israel, i.e., from Jacob according to the flesh, are true Israelites, to whom God's promises belong, but those who are upright and see God by faith: fear not, Jacob, and thus most just whom I have chosen (Isa 44:2). Hence the Lord also said to Nathanael: behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile (John 1:47). Now this name, Israel, had been put on Jacob by an angel (Gen 32:28). Second, he states the same things by comparison with Abraham, saying: neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, sons, i.e., are not the spiritual sons of Abraham to whom God promised the blessings, but only those who imitate his faith and works: if you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did (John 8:40).
Commentary on Romans
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
οὐδ᾿ ὅτι εἰσὶ σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα·
ни занѐ сꙋ́ть сѣ́мѧ а҆враа́мле, всѝ ча̑да: но во і҆саа́цѣ, речѐ, нарече́тсѧ тѝ сѣ́мѧ.
What Paul wants us to understand is that not all are worthy because they are children of Abraham, but only those who are children of the promise, that is, whom God foreknew would receive his promise, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.… Abraham believed and received Isaac on account of his faith, because he believed in God. By this the mystery of the future faith was indicated, that they would be brothers of Isaac who had the same faith by which Isaac was born, because Isaac was born as a type of the Savior by the promise. Thus whoever believes that Christ Jesus was promised to Abraham is a child of Abraham and a brother of Isaac. Abraham was told that all the nations would be blessed in his offspring. This happened not in Isaac, but in him who was promised to Abraham in Isaac, that is, Christ, in whom all the nations are blessed when they believe. Therefore the other Jews are children of the flesh, because they are deprived of the promise and cannot claim Abraham’s merit, because they do not follow the faith by which Abraham is counted worthy.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
Paul wants to say that it is not those who are of Abraham’s flesh who are his children, but those who are of the promise, who are godly and just, whom God promised according to his foreknowledge would be children of Abraham, just as Isaac was made righteous by the promise.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word hath not fallen to the ground. Of what kind, pray, is the seed then? It is no saying of mine, he means, but the Old Testament itself explains itself by saying as follows, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." What is, "In Isaac?" Explain.
Homily on Romans 16
Not all Jews are children of Abraham, but some still are; and if not all Israelites are from Israel, then some … are from the Gentiles. Even so, the sons of Abraham were named in Isaac alone and not in Ishmael, although he too descended from Abraham’s line.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
Although it was beyond the capacity of nature, Abraham became a father by divine generosity. Paul says this, even though Ishmael was also Abraham’s son and moreover, he was the firstborn. Therefore why do you boast, O Jew, that you are the only one to be descended from Abraham? For if you think that Ishmael does not count because he was the son of a slave, you are wrong. Holy Scripture reckons descent through the father and not through the mother. After all, the holy apostle could have mentioned the children born to Abraham through Keturah and shown that although they were born to a free woman they were not recognized as Abraham’s seed. It would also have been easy for Paul to show that the twelve sons of Jacob had different mothers, and four of them were the children of slaves, yet all of them belonged to Israel, and none of them was hurt by his mother’s slavery.… Here Paul wanted to insist that it was not the entire race of Abraham which received the blessing. Rather, only one of his sons was blessed, and the others were rejected.
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
God, he says, fulfilled what was promised. He said: "To you I will give it, and to your offspring" (Gen. 13:15). So then, let us see what this offspring is. Not all who descended from Abraham are simply his offspring, and not all who descended from Israel are Israelites, but those born after the example of Isaac and distinguished by the virtue of Israel, through which he saw God. For he did not say: who are from Jacob, but: "from Israel," mentioning the more honorable name. Therefore, if you understand who is born after the example of Isaac, you will find that the promise is not false: for to such were the promises given. Therefore God by no means deserves reproach: what He said, He also fulfilled, even though some do not understand this.
Commentary on Romans
Then he clarifies his statement, at but in Isaac. First, in regard to Abraham; second, in regard to Jacob, at and not only she. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying, but in Isaac will your seed be called. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Genesis 21, when describing the expulsion of Ishmael. As if to say: not all who were born from Abraham according to the flesh belong to that seed to whom the promises were made, as it says in Galatians: to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed (Gal 3:16), but those who are like Isaac.
Commentary on Romans
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν οὐ τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα.
Си́рѣчь, не ча̑да плотска̑ѧ, сїѧ̑ ча̑да бж҃їѧ: но ча̑да ѡ҆бѣтова́нїѧ причита́ютсѧ въ сѣ́мѧ.
"That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, these are counted for the seed." And observe the judgment and depth of Paul's mind. For in interpreting, he does not say, "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not" the children of Abraham, but, "the children of God:" so blending the former things with the present, and showing that even Isaac was not merely Abraham's son.
And what he means is something of this sort: as many as have been born as Isaac was, they are sons of God, and of the seed of Abraham. And this is why he said, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." That one may learn that they who are born after the fashion of Isaac, these are in the truest sense Abraham's children. In what way was Isaac born then? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of the promise.
Homily on Romans 16
Ishmael was born of a maidservant by sexual intercourse, but Isaac was begotten by supernatural means from old people, by God’s promise. So the promise, which Abraham’s faith merited, now makes Christians sons of Abraham, so that Abraham is indeed the father of many nations.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
Not I, he says, am explaining to you what the true seed of Abraham is, but the Old Testament, which says: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12). Therefore those who were born after the example of Isaac, that is, according to the promise, are truly children of Abraham, and especially of God. For everything was accomplished by the word of God. Therefore, the word of God was fulfilled, but God granted what was promised to the true seed, that is, to the believers from among the Gentiles, who became children of God just as Isaac, because they too were of the promise. But if the Jews say that the words "in Isaac shall thy seed be called" mean that those born of Isaac are reckoned as the seed of Abraham, then one must also honor the Idumeans and all who descended from him, because their forefather Esau was a son of Isaac. But the Idumeans are not only not called sons of Abraham, but are even quite foreign to the Israelites and are called aliens.
Commentary on Romans
Then he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis, when he says that is to say, not they who are the sons. To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Galatians: Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave, namely, Ishmael, was born according to the flesh (Gal 4:22), because he was born according to the law and custom of the flesh from a young woman: the son of the free woman, namely, Isaac, through promise and not according to the flesh, i.e., not according to the law and custom of the flesh, because he was born from a sterile, old woman (Gen 18:10); although he was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the substance of the flesh he received from his parents. From this the Apostle decides that those adopted into the sonship of God are not the sons of the flesh, i.e., not because they are the bodily descendants of Abraham, but they are accounted for the seed, to whom was made the promise, who are the sons of the promise, i.e., those who are made sons of Abraham because they imitate his faith, as it says in Matthew: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt 3:9). Thus, Ishmael, born according to the flesh, was not numbered among the seed, but Isaac, born by the promise, was.
Commentary on Romans
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος· κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός.
Ѡ҆бѣтова́нїѧ бо сло́во сїѐ: на сїѐ вре́мѧ прїидꙋ̀, и҆ бꙋ́детъ са́ррѣ сы́нъ.
This prefigures Christ, because Christ was promised to Abraham as a future son, in whom the word of the promise would be fulfilled.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son." This promise then and word of God it was that fashioned Isaac, and begat him. For what if a womb was its instrument and the belly of a woman? Since it was not the power of the belly, but the might of the promise that begat the child. Thus are we also gendered by the words of God. Since in the pool of water it is the words of God which generate and fashion us. For it is by being baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that we are gendered. And this birth is not of nature, but of the promise of God.
For as after first foretelling the birth of Isaac, He then accomplished it; so ours also He had announced before, many ages ago by all the Prophets, and afterwards brought it to pass. You know how great He has set it forth as being, and how, as He promised a great thing, He furnished it with abundant ease! But if the Jews were to say, that the words, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," mean this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens. You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of baptism from above was sketched out beforehand.
Homily on Romans 16
This passage [to v. 29] is rather obscure.
To Simplician on Various Questions 1.2.1
And Isaac was born not according to the law and power of nature, but by the power of the promise. "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son" (cf. Gen. 18:10). So then, Isaac was formed and born by the word of God. In the same way over us, the children of God, in the baptismal font, as if in a womb, the words of God are pronounced, which also form us; because we, being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, are born. And just as there God promised the birth of Isaac and then fulfilled it, so also our birth He promised through the prophets and then brought it to fulfillment. Therefore the words "in Isaac shall thy seed be called" should be understood thus: the seed of Abraham are those who were born after the pattern of Isaac's birth, that is, by the word of God.
Commentary on Romans
Third, at for this is the word of promise, he proves that his explanation is valid, when he says that the children of the promise are the ones signified by Isaac, namely, because Isaac was born as the result of a promise. Hence he says: for this is the word of promise. Indeed, this is the statement the angel or the Lord through an angel made to Abraham: about this time will I come, by which the time of grace is signified: when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son (Gal 4:4) and Sarah shall have a son on account of the promise. Hence, it is said: so that we might receive adoption of sons (Gal 4:5).
Commentary on Romans
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ρεβέκκα ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα, Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν·
Не то́чїю же, но и҆ реве́кка ѿ є҆ди́нагѡ ло́жа і҆саа́ка ѻ҆тца̀ на́шегѡ и҆мꙋ́щи:
The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer from the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger." From which it is evident, that not only were there prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but that both should be of one and the same Father.
Against Heresies Book 4
For thus unto Rebecca did God speak: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from thy bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less." Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and "greater" through the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be "less" in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy: beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and "greater" people-that is, the Jewish-must necessarily serve the "less; "and the "less" people-that is, the Christian-overcome the "greater.
An Answer to the Jews
Much more aptly would they have matched the Christian with the elder, and the Jew with the younger son, "according to the analogy of faith," if the order of each people as intimated from Rebecca's womb permitted the inversion: only that (in that case) the concluding paragraph would oppose them; for it will he fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it he true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel.
On Modesty
Paul says that Sarah was not the only one to give birth in a typological manner. Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, did the same, though in a different way. Isaac was born as a type of the Savior, but Jacob and Esau were born as types of two peoples, believers and unbelievers, who come from the same source but are nevertheless very different.… One person represents the entire race, not because he is their physical ancestor but because he shares their relationship to God. There are children of Esau who are children of Jacob, and vice versa. It is not because Jacob is praised that all those descended from him are worthy to be called his children. Nor is it because Esau was rejected that all those descended from him are condemned, for we see that Jacob the deceiver had unbelieving children, and Esau had children who were faithful and dear to God. There is no doubt that there are many unbelieving children of Jacob, for all the Jews, whether they are believers or unbelievers, have their origin in him. And that there are good and faithful children of Esau is proved by the example of Job, who was a descendent of Esau, five generations away from Abraham and therefore Esau’s grandson.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac." The subject in question was an important one. Hence he turns to several arguments, and endeavors by all means to solve the difficulty. For if it was at once strange and new for them to be cast out after so great promises, it is much more strange that we even should come into their good things, who did not expect anything of the kind.
I might, he implies, have mentioned the children by Keturah besides, but I do not. But to gain the victory from a vantage ground it is those born of one and the same father, and mother too, that I bring forward. For they were both sprung from Rebecca, and from Isaac the true-born, the elect, the son honored above all, of whom He said, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," who became "the father of us all;" but if he was our father, then should his sons have been our fathers; yet it was not so. You see how this happens not in Abraham's case only, but also in that of his son himself, and how it is faith and virtue in all cases that is conspicuous, and gives the real relationship its character.
Homily on Romans 16
Not only are Ishmael and Isaac (who were born of different mothers but the same father) not equal in the sight of God; Jacob and Esau too (who were born of Rebecca by a single conception), were separated in God’s sight before they were born, because of their future faith, so that God’s plan to choose the good and reject the evil already existed in his foreknowledge. Thus God has now chosen from among the Gentiles those whom he foreknew would believe and has rejected those of Israel whom he foreknew would not believe. Rebecca is thought to have been the first woman to have borne twins; it is because this strange thing has happened to her that she inquires of God.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
God’s foreknowledge does not prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
Paul reinforces here what he said earlier about Sarah and Isaac, in case someone might think that the election depended on the mother. For although Rebecca had twins, only one of them was chosen.
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
He has already proven that although Abraham had many different descendants, Isaac and those who are born like him were called his seed. Now he says: you can see this not only in Isaac, but, what is more important, in brothers born of the same father and the same mother, and moreover twins, that is, in Esau and Jacob. And they did not receive equal rights, but one was chosen and the other was hated. Therefore do not ask why God chose the Gentiles and made them the seed of Abraham, or rather of God, and rejected the Jews.
Commentary on Romans
Then he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob, when he says and not only she. First, he states his intention; second, he clarifies his position, at for when the children were not yet born. First, therefore, he says: and not only she, namely, Sarah, begot a son about whom the promise was made, but when Rebecca also, having in her womb two sons, one of whom pertained to the promise and the other only to the flesh, had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For it says in Genesis: Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, and the Lord gave her conception, but the children struggled together within her (Gen 25:21ff.). And it should be noted that the Apostle cites this against the Jews who supposed that they would obtain justice through the merits of their forefathers, which is contrary to what is said about just men, namely, that they will deliver neither sons nor daughters but they alone will be delivered (Ezek 14:18). This is why John said to the Jews: do not presume to say: we have Abraham as our father (Matt 3:9). Paul, therefore, counters this opinion by reminding them that of Abraham's children one was chosen and the other rejected. But he could have ascribed this difference to the mothers, because Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman, or to the changed meriting state of the father; because while uncircumcised he begot Ishmael but circumcised he begot Isaac. To exclude any such subterfuge, therefore, he cites the case where one is chosen and the other rejected, even though both were born of the same father and the same mother at the same time and, indeed, from one coition.
Commentary on Romans
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
μήπω γὰρ γεννηθέντων μηδὲ πραξάντων τι ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν, ἵνα ἡ κατ᾿ ἐκλογὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόθεσις μένῃ, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος,
є҆ще́ бо не ро́ждшымсѧ, ни сотвори́вшымъ что̀ бл҃го и҆лѝ ѕло̀, да по и҆збра́нїю предложе́нїе бж҃їе пребꙋ́детъ
Paul is saying all this in order to demonstrate that if either Isaac or Jacob had been chosen by God because of their merits and earned justification by the works of the flesh, then the grace which they merited could belong also to those who were descended from them according to flesh and blood. But in fact, since their election was not due to works, but to the purpose of God and the free will of him who called them, the grace of the promises is not fulfilled in the children of the flesh, but in the children of God, that is, in those who are likewise chosen according to God’s purpose and adopted as sons.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Paul proclaims God’s foreknowledge by citing these events, because nothing can happen in the future other than what God already knows. Therefore, knowing what each of them would become, God said: “The younger will be worthy and the elder unworthy.” In his foreknowledge he chose the one and rejected the other. And in the one whom God chose his purpose remained, because nothing other than what God knew and purposed in him to make him worthy of salvation could happen. Likewise, the purpose of God remained in the one whom he rejected. However, although God knew what would happen, he is not a respecter of persons and condemns nobody before he sins, nor does he reward anyone until he conquers.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
11–13"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good. And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, "the elder shall serve the younger." With what intent then did God say this? Because He doth not wait, as man doth, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knoweth which is the wicked and which not such.
And this took place in the Israelites' case also, in a still more wonderful way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and of Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the Israelites' case, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshipped the calf. Yet notwithstanding some had mercy shown them, and others had not.
The clearing up then of the whole passage, to give the whole sense summarily, is here brought out by that blessed person. But that this may be clearer, let us investigate the things he says also one by one; this knowing, that what the blessed Paul aimed at was, to show by all that he said that God only knoweth who are worthy, and no man whatever knoweth, even if he seem to know ever so well, but that in this sentence of his there are sundry aberrations. For He that knoweth the secrets of the hearts, He only knoweth for a certainty who deserve a crown, and who punishment and vengeance. Hence it is that many of those, by men esteemed good, He convicts and punishes, and those suspected to be bad He crowns, after showing it not to be so; thus forming his sentence not after the judgment of us slaves, but after his own keen and uncorrupt decision, and not waiting for the issue of actions to look at the wicked and him who is not so therefrom.
Homily on Romans 16
Perhaps this happened so that it might be shown that even from a set of twins the one who does not believe is abandoned.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
This moves some people to suppose that the apostle Paul had taken away the freedom of the will, by which we either please God by the good of faithfulness or offend him by the evil of unfaithfulness. These people say that God loved the one and hated the other before either one was born or could have done either good or evil. But we reply that God did this by foreknowledge, by which he knows what even the unborn will be like in the future. But let no one say God chose the works of the man whom he loved, although these works did not yet exist, because he knew in advance what they would be. If God elected works, why does the apostle say that election is not according to works? Thus we should understand that we do good works through love, and we have love by the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says himself: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.”Therefore no one should glory in his works as if they were his own, for he does them by the gift of God, since love itself works good in him. What then has God elected? If he gives the Holy Spirit, through whom love works good, to whomever he wishes, how does he choose whom to give him to? If he does not choose according to merit, it is not election, for everyone is equal prior to merit, and it is impossible to choose between totally equal things. But since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not choose works (which he himself bestows), for he gives the Holy Spirit so that through love we might do good works. Rather, he chooses faith. For unless each one believes in him and perseveres in his willingness to receive, he does not receive the gift of God (i.e., the Holy Spirit), through whom, by an outpouring of love, he is enabled to do good works. Therefore God did not choose anyone’s works (which he himself will give) by foreknowledge, but by foreknowledge he chose faith. He chose the one whom he knew in advance would believe in him, and to him he has given the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he may attain everlasting life. Belief is our work, but good deeds belong to him who gives the Holy Spirit to believers. This argument was used against certain Jews who, once they believed in Christ, gloried in the works they had done before receiving grace. They claimed that they had merited the grace of the gospel by these earlier works, even though only a person who has received grace can do good works. Furthermore, grace is such that the call comes to the sinner when he has no merit and prevents him from going straight to his damnation. But if he follows God’s call of his own free will, he will also merit the Holy Spirit, through whom he can do good works. And remaining in the Spirit (also by free will) he will merit eternal life, which cannot be marred by any corruption.
On Romans 60
No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling; they do not precede it.… Unless the mercy of God in calling precedes faith, no one can even believe and thus begin to be justified and to receive the power to do good works. So grace comes before all merit. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from the God who called him and not from any meritorious works of his own.
To Simplician on Various Questions 1.2.1
We know that children not yet born have done nothing either good or evil in their own life, nor have they any merits from a previous life, which no individual can have as his own. They come into the miseries of this life, their carnal birth according to Adam involves them at the moment of their nativity in the contagion of the primal death, and they are not delivered from the penalty of eternal death which a just verdict passing from one lays upon all unless they are born again in Christ through grace.
Letter 217
Here it is necessary for us to state in advance the meaning of what the apostle intends to discuss at length. Many were saying: why were the Gentiles preferred over the Jews? (For no one could say it was for virtue, because all had sinned.) The apostle gathers many difficulties that are incomprehensible to us but comprehensible to God alone. First he presents that between two twin brothers, the chosen one was chosen not for virtue, and the hated one was hated not for wickedness (for they had done neither good nor evil, since they were still in their mother's womb), but by election, by God's foreknowledge.
Commentary on Romans
Then he clarifies his thesis, when he says for when the children were not yet born: first, by the authority of Genesis (Gen 25:24); second, by a text from the prophet Malachi, at as it is written. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when the children were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other in virtue of the promise. And just as his previous statement excluded the opinion of the Jews trusting in the merits of their forefathers, so this statement counters the error of the Manicheans who claimed that a person's life and death were controlled by the constellation under which he was born, against what is said in Jeremiah: be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear (Jer 10:2). Then when he continues: nor had done any good or evil, the Pelagian error is refuted which says that grace is given according to one's preceding merits, even though it says in Titus: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy (Titus 3:5). Both of these are shown false by the fact that before birth and before doing anything one of Rebecca's sons is preferred to the other. This also corrects Origen's error who supposed that men's souls were created when the angels were, and that they merited different lives depending on the merits they earned for the good or evil they had done there. This could not be true in the light of what is stated here, namely that for when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil. Against this also is Job: where were you when the morning stars praised me together and all the sons of God made joyful melody? (Job 38:7). For according to Origen's error, he could have answered: I was among those joyful sons of God. Second, he shows what could be understood from that promise by which one of the twins in the womb was chosen over the other. He says: in order that God's purpose, by which one would be greater than the other, might stand, i.e., be made firm: and this not by reason of merits but according to election, i.e., inasmuch as God himself spontaneously forechose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy, as it says in Ephesians: he chose us in himself before the foundation of the world that we should be holy (Eph 1:4). But this is a decree of predestination about which the same text says: predestined according to the purpose of his will (Eph 1:15).
Commentary on Romans
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
ἐρρέθη αὐτῇ ὅτι ὁ μείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι,
не ѿ дѣ́лъ, но ѿ призыва́ющагѡ, рече́сѧ є҆́й, ꙗ҆́кѡ бо́лїй порабо́таетъ ме́ньшемꙋ,
Here Paul shows that the people who came afterward belonged to the promise after the manner of Isaac.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
No one could say that Jacob had conciliated God by meritorious works before he was born, so that God should say this of him.… Nor had Isaac conciliated God by any previous meritorious works, so that his birth should have been promised.… Good works do not produce grace, but are produced by grace.
To Simplician on Various Questions 1.2.3
One was chosen and loved, and the other hated, so that everything might be the work of God and of His election and foreknowledge, and not from works, but from Him who calls.
Commentary on Romans
Third, he sets down the promise, saying, not of works, for no works preceded it, as has been said: but of him who calls, i.e., through the grace of God calling, for it was said to her, i.e., Rebecca, that the elder, i.e., Esau, shall serve the younger, i.e., Jacob. This can be understood in three ways. In one way, as referring to the persons involved, and then Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, inasmuch as the persecution he launched against him ended in Jacob's benefit, as it says in Proverbs: the fool will serve the wise (Prov 11:29). Second, it can be referred to the people who sprang from each, because the Edomites were once subject to the Israelites, as it says in a psalm: upon Edom I cast my shoe (Ps 60:8). This seems to fit Genesis: the nations are in your womb; the one shall be stronger than the other (Gen 25:23). Third, it can be taken figuratively so that by the elder is understood the Jewish people, who were the first to receive the adoption of sons, in accord with Exodus, Israel is my firstborn son (Exod 4:22), and by the younger is understood the gentiles, who were called to the Father later and were signified by the prodigal son (Luke 15). The elder people in this case serve the younger, inasmuch as the Jews are our capsarii (slaves who carried boys' satchels to school), guarding the books from which the truths of our faith are drawn: search the Scriptures (John 5:39).
Commentary on Romans
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
καθὼς γέγραπται· τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.
ꙗ҆́коже є҆́сть пи́сано: і҆а́кѡва возлюби́хъ, и҆са́ѵа же возненави́дѣхъ.
The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer from the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger." From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Against Heresies Book 4
These things are said of the Jews … for not all who are called children of Abraham deserve to be so called, as I have already pointed out. Therefore Paul restricts his grief to the fact that he discovered that it was long ago predicted that not all would believe, and he grieves for them only because they refused to believe out of jealousy. They had the opportunity, however, as Paul demonstrates. At the same time, there was no point in grieving over those who were not predestined to eternal life, for God’s foreknowledge had long ago decreed that they would not be saved. For who would cry over someone who is long dead? But when the Gentiles appeared and accepted the salvation which the Jews had lost, Paul’s grief was stirred, but this was mainly because they were the cause of their own damnation.God knew those who would turn out to be people of ill will and he did not number them among the good, although the Savior said to the seventy-two disciples whom he chose as a second class and who later abandoned him: “Your names are written in heaven.” But this was because of justice, since it is just that each person should receive his reward. For because they were good they were chosen for this service, and their names were written in heaven for the sake of justice, as I have said. But according to foreknowledge they were among the number of the wicked. For God judges according to his justice, not according to his foreknowledge. Thus he said to Moses: “If someone sins against me, I shall delete him from my book.” The person who sins is deleted according to the justice of the Judge, but according to his foreknowledge his name was never in the book of life. The apostle John described these people as follows: “They went out from us but they were never of us, for if they had been of us they would have remained with us.” There is no respect of persons in God’s foreknowledge. For God’s foreknowledge is that by which it is defined what the future will of each person will be, in which he will remain, by which he will either be condemned or rewarded. Some of those who will remain among the good were once evil, and some of those who will remain among the evil were once good.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
The apostle shows that what had been told to Rebecca was fulfilled in her descendants.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
If God hated Esau because he was a vessel made for dishonor, how could it be true that God hates nothing which he has made? For in that case, God hated Esau, even though he had made him as a vessel for dishonor. This knotty problem is solved if we understand that God is the Maker of all creatures. Every creature of God is good. Every man is a creature as man but not as sinner. God is the Creator both of the body and of the soul of man. Neither of these is evil, and God hates neither. He hates nothing which he has made. But the soul is more excellent than the body, and God is more excellent than both soul and body, being the maker and fashioner of both. In man he hates nothing but sin. Sin in man is perversity and lack of order, i.e., a turning away from the Creator, who is more excellent, and a turning to the creatures which are inferior to him. God does not hate Esau the man, but he does hate Esau the sinner.
To Simplician on Various Questions 1.2.18
Thus God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael and the children of Keturah. So also he chose Jacob over Esau, even though both were formed together in the womb. Why be surprised then, if God does the same thing nowadays, by accepting those of you who believe and rejecting those who have not seen the light?
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
It was many years after the event that Scripture testified to this in the words of the prophet Haggai [Malachi]. Paul added this quotation because he wanted to show that God’s judgment is just, for while it was in accordance with his foreknowledge, the lives of both men later followed these different paths.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
As the prophet also says: "I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated" (Mal. 1:2). But why do I speak of these persons? All the Israelites worshipped the calf, yet some were punished and others were not. And Pharaoh was indeed cruel, but many others were also cruel: why then did punishment befall him alone? Do you see that this is incomprehensible to men but comprehensible to God alone? So also the election of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews appears groundless to us, yet in the eyes of God both are perfectly just. Such is the meaning of this entire passage.
Commentary on Romans
Then he proves his point when he says as it is written, by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. A Gloss on this says that the statement, the elder shall serve the younger, was spoken from foreknowledge, but that the present statement results from judgment, i.e., that God loved Jacob on account of his good works, just as he loves all the saints: I love those who love me (Prov 8:17), but he hated Esau on account of his sins: the Highest hates sinners (Eccl 12:7). But because man's love is preceded by God's love: not that we loved God, but that he has first loved us (1 John 4:20), we must say that Jacob was loved by God before he loved God. Nor can it be said that God began to love him at a fixed point in time; otherwise his love would be changeable. Consequently, one must say that God loved Jacob from all eternity, as it says in Jeremiah: I have loved you with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3). Now these words of the Apostle identify in God three things pertaining to the saints, namely, election, by which is understood God's predestination and election. In God these are really the same, but in our understanding they differ. For it is called God's love, inasmuch as he wills good to a person absolutely; it is election, inasmuch as through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. But it is called predestination, inasmuch as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions predestination comes after love, just as the will's fixation on the end naturally precedes the process of directing things toward the end. Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in man. For in men, election precedes love, for a man's will is inclined to love a thing on account of the good perceived in it, this good also being the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixed his love on the thing he preferred. But God's love is the cause of every good found in a creature; consequently, the good in virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows upon God's willing it—which pertains to his love. Consequently, it is not in virtue of some good which he selects in a man that God loves him; rather, it is because he loved him that he prefers him to someone by election. But just as the love, about which we are speaking, pertains to God's eternal predestination, so the hatred about which we are speaking pertains to the rejection by which God rejects sinners. It should not be supposed that this rejection is temporal, because nothing in the divine will is temporal; rather, it is eternal. Furthermore, it is akin to love or predestination in one respect and different in another. It is akin in the sense that just as predestination is preparation for glory, so rejection is preparation for punishment: for a burning place has long been prepared, yes, for the king it is made ready (Isa 30:33). It is different in that predestination implies preparation of the merits by which glory is reached, but rejection implies preparation of the sins by which punishment is reached. Consequently, a foreknowledge of merits cannot be the reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be a reason for rejection on the part of the punishment prepared for the rejected, inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for the sins they have from themselves, not from God; the just he proposes to reward on account of the merits they do not have from themselves: destruction is your own, O Israel; your help is only in me (Hos 13:9).
Commentary on Romans
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ; μὴ γένοιτο.
Что̀ ᲂу҆̀бо рече́мъ; Є҆да̀ непра́вда ᲂу҆ бг҃а; Да не бꙋ́детъ.
All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named "called." For there is no unrighteousness with God. Those of either race who have believed, are "a peculiar people." And in the Acts of the Apostles you will find this, word for word, "Those then who received his word were baptized;" but those who would not obey kept themselves aloof. To these prophecy says, "If ye be willing and hear me, ye shall eat the good things of the land;" proving that choice or refusal depends on ourselves.
The Stromata Book 1
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Hence there is no such thing in the case of us and the Jews. And then he goes on with another thing, a more clear than this. And of what sort is it?
Homily on Romans 16
Paul was afraid that because he had argued that racial privilege is of no consequence in God’s sight, or in case the Jews understood him to be saying that already at that time it was indicated that later people would be better people, they might think that he meant that God makes some people good and others evil, because, in the judgment of the Jews, it was unjust to punish those who had not voluntarily sinned, Paul also calls to mind the contrary texts which they usually used to support this view, and after replying to these examples with brief objections he shows that they should not be understood as they understand them.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
What is to be said of infants who receive the sacrament of Christian grace, as is usual at that age, and thus undoubtedly have a claim to eternal life and the kingdom of heaven if they die at once, whereas if they are allowed to grow up, some become even apostates? Why is this, except that they are not included in that predestination and calling according to his purpose which is without repentance? Why some are included and others are not can be for a hidden reason but not for an unjust one.
Letter 149
Why does God not scourge all men mercifully in such a way so as not to allow anyone to be hardened against him? Either this is to be ascribed to the wickedness of those who have deserved to become hardened, or it is to be referred to the inscrutable judgments of God, which are often hidden but are never unjust.
Sermon 101.5
Therefore, God is just both in relation to us, the Gentiles, and in relation to the Jews.
Commentary on Romans
After showing that by God's choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling, the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice. First, he raises a question; second, he answers it, at God forbid! For he says to Moses; third, he objects against the solution, at you will say therefore to me: why does he still complain? First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that God chose one and rejected the other without any preceding merit. What shall we say then? Does this enable us to prove that there is injustice on God's part? It seems so. For it pertains to justice that things be dispensed equally to equals. But when differences arising from merit are removed, men are equal. Therefore, if without consideration of merits God dispensed unequally by choosing one and rejecting the other, it seems that there is injustice to him; contrary to what is said in Deuteronomy: God is faithful and without any iniquity (Deut 32:4); righteous are you, O Lord, and right are your judgments (Ps 119:137). It should be noted that Origen fell into error trying to solve this objection. For he says in his Periarchon that from the beginning God made only spiritual creatures and all were equal, lest he be charged with injustice for any inequality; later, differences among these creatures arose from differences of merit. For some of those spiritual creatures were turned to God by love, some more and some less; on this basis the various orders of angels were distinguished. Others turned from God, some more and some less; on this basis they were bound to bodies, either noble or lowly; some to heavenly bodies, some to bodies of demons, some to bodies of men. Accordingly, the reason for making and distinguishing bodily creatures is the sin of spiritual creatures. But this is against what is said in Genesis: God saw everything which he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31), which gives us to understand that goodness was the cause of producing bodily creatures, as Augustine says in The City of God. Therefore, we must set aside this opinion and see how the Apostle solves the problem when he says, God forbid! In regard to this he does two things. First, he solves the problem with respect to choosing the saints; second, with respect to hating and rejecting the wicked, at for the Scripture says. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes the scriptural text from which the solution comes; second, he draws the conclusion from it, at so then it is not of him.
Commentary on Romans
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
τῷ γὰρ Μωϋσῇ λέγει· ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω.
Мѡѷсе́ови бо гл҃етъ: поми́лꙋю, є҆го́же а҆́ще поми́лꙋю, и҆ ᲂу҆ще́дрю, є҆го́же а҆́ще ᲂу҆ще́дрю.
"For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," saith the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake.
The Stromata Book 4
It is not unjust for God to have mercy on those he wishes to have mercy on but not on others. For, as Paul says, God demonstrates through Moses what his mercy was like. He does not dispense mercy according to human standards, but according to the wisdom of God. For we are shown mercy not because of our own works but because of God, who has the power to show mercy.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
This means that God will have mercy on those whom he knows will be converted and remain with him.… He will show mercy to those who, after they have sinned, return to him with a right heart. It is God’s to give or to not give. He calls the ones whom he knows will obey and does not call those whom he knows will not obey.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Here again he adds force to the objection by dividing it in two and meeting it, and starting another fresh difficulty. But to make what I have said clearer, one must needs explain it. God, he means, said that "the elder shall serve the younger," before the travail. What then? "Is God unrighteous?" By no means. Now listen to what follows also. For in that case the virtue or the vice, might be the decisive thing. But here there was one sin on which all the Jews joined, that of the molten calf, and still some were punished, and some were not punished. And this is why He says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." For it is not thine to know, O Moses, he means, which are deserving of My love toward man, but leave this to Me. But if Moses had no right to know, much less have we. And this is why he did not barely quote the passage, but also called to our minds to whom it was said. For it is Moses, he means, that he is speaking to, that at least by the dignity of the person he might make the objector modest.
Homily on Romans 16
This means: “I will have mercy on him whom I have foreknown will be able to deserve compassion, so that I have already had mercy on him.”
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
God was merciful to us in the first place in that he called us while we were still sinners … and he continues to have mercy on us now that we believe. How does God have mercy a second time? He gives his Holy Spirit to the man who believes and asks for him. And having given the Spirit God will then have compassion on those to whom he has already shown compassion. That is to say, he will make the believer compassionate so that he may do good works through love. Let no one take the credit for acting compassionately, since it was by the Holy Spirit that God gave him this love, without which no one can be compassionate.God did not elect those who had done good works, but those who believed, so that he might enable them to do good works. It is our part to believe and to will and his part to give to those who believe and will the ability to do good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts in order to make us compassionate.
On Romans 61
He adds, as was said above, another saying from the Old Testament as well, proving that God alone knows who is worthy of honor and who of punishment. Although all equally sinned when they cast the calf, God nonetheless had mercy on some, while others He handed over to the Levites for slaughter. And Moses, great before God, did not know the reason for this, yet you inquire into the reason why the Gentiles were preferred over the Jews, even though they were sinners? However, Paul could have stated this reason, as he did state it in another place, that the Israelites thought they were justified by works, while the Gentiles believed they were justified by faith and grace; yet he does not state it now, more than sufficiently shutting the mouths of the curious and persuading them not to scrutinize the judgments of God.
Commentary on Romans
The text he adduces is from Exodus where the Lord said to Moses: I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me (Exod 33:19). But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: for the Lord says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I show mercy. The meaning is that all our blessings are ascribed to God's mercy, as it says in Isaiah: I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things the Lord has bestowed upon us; and: the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed (Isa 63:7); because his commiserations have not failed (Lam 3:22). The text Paul cites is explained in two ways in a Gloss, so that it solves the question and the objection in two ways. First, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., on him who is worthy of mercy. To amplify this he repeats: I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, i.e., on whom I judge worthy of compassion, as it says in a psalm: the Lord has compassion on those who fear him (Ps 103:13). It follows from this that although he imparts his blessings from mercy, he is nevertheless excused from injustice; for he gives to those who should be given to and does not give to one who should not be given to, according to the correctness of his judgment. But having mercy on one who is worthy can be understood in two ways: in one way so that one is counted worthy of mercy on account of preexisting works in this life, though not in another life, as Origen supposed. This belongs to the Pelagian heresy which taught that God's grace is given to men according to their merits. But this cannot stand, because, as has been stated, the good merits themselves are from God and are the effects of predestination. But there is another way in which one is considered worthy of mercy, not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits subsequent to grace; for example, if God gives a person grace and he planned from eternity to give him that grace which he foresaw would be used well. According to this the Gloss is saying that he has mercy on him who should be given mercy. Hence he says: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., by calling and bestowing grace, I will have mercy on him to whom I know beforehand that I will show mercy, knowing that he will be converted and abide with me. But it seems that not even this is a suitable explanation. For it is clear that nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for a predestination, even if it be taken as existing in God's foreknowledge, because the reason for a predestination is presupposed to the predestination, whereas the effect is included in it. But every benefit God bestows on a man for his salvation is an effect of predestination. Furthermore, God's benefits extend not only to the infusion of grace, by which a man is made righteous, but also to its use, just as in natural things God not only causes their forms but also all the movements and activities of those forms, inasmuch as God is the source of all movement in such a way that when he ceases to act, no movement or activity proceeds from those forms. But sanctifying grace and the accompanying virtues in the soul are related to their use as a natural form is related to its activity. Hence, it is said: O Lord, you have wrought for us all our works (Isa 26:12). Aristotle proves this in a particular way when he discusses the works of the human will. For since man is open to opposites, say to sitting or not sitting, it must be resolved by something else. But this is done by deliberation, which is followed by choosing one over the other. But again, since man has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, it will be necessary that something move him to deliberate. But since this does not proceed infinitely, there must be some external principal superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle is none other than God. In this way, then, the very use of grace is from God. But this does not mean that sanctifying grace is superfluous, any more than natural forms are superfluous, even though God works in all, as it is said: wisdom orders all things sweetly (Wis 8:1), because through their forms all things are inclined spontaneously, as it were, to that to which they are ordered by God. Consequently, it is impossible that the merits which follow grace are the reason for showing mercy or for predestination; the only reason is God's will, according to which he mercifully delivers certain ones. For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wages, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither. For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by his grace he delivers by his mercy alone; and so he is merciful to those whom he delivers, just to those whom he does not deliver, but unjust to none. Thus, the Apostle solves the question with a text which ascribes all to divine mercy. Yet it should be noted that God's mercy is viewed according to three aspects: first, according to predestination by which he proposed from all eternity to deliver certain ones: the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps 103:17); second, according to his calling and justifying, by which he saves men in time: he saved us in his mercy (Titus 3:5); third, according to the bestowal of glory, when he frees from all misery: who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy (Ps 103:4). Therefore, he says: I will have mercy, namely, by calling and justifying, on whom I have mercy by predestining and having compassion and finally by crowning with glory him on whom I have mercy by calling and justifying. This interpretation is more in keeping with the version before me: I will be gracious to whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me where divine mercy is clearly ascribed not to merits but solely to the divine will.
Commentary on Romans
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
ἄρα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ.
Тѣ́мже ᲂу҆̀бо ни хотѧ́щагѡ, ни текꙋ́щагѡ, но ми́лꙋющагѡ бг҃а.
This must be understood in the light of what David says in the psalm: “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” From this we learn that it is not because the builder sits idly by that God builds the house for him but because he works and expends as much labor and care as lies within human power, but yet it belongs to God to remove all the obstacles and bring the work to completion. Thus, man is called to work as hard as he can, but God will crown the work with success. Therefore it is godly and right for a man to leave the completion of his work to God and not to another human being. Likewise, Paul sowed and Apollos watered but God gave the increase, “so neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” In the same way, we can say that “it depends not upon man’s will or exertion but upon God’s mercy.”
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
When Saul asked forgiveness for his sin he did not receive it, but David, when he confessed his sin, did receive forgiveness. However, it cannot be said on this basis that God judged unjustly by granting forgiveness to the one and withholding it from the other. For the one who looks on the heart knows in what spirit the penitent is making his request and whether it deserves to be heard. And although it is dangerous to try to figure out God’s judgment, yet in the case of unbelievers, who reap the reward of their own minds, it cannot be said that God’s judgment is unjust.Look at the stories of Saul and David and ask yourself what happened to them after God’s judgment. Did Saul do what was right after he was refused mercy? Did he prove that God’s judgment was unjust? Did David after receiving mercy turn his back on God? Or did he remain in him from whom he received mercy?
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
God is not unjust simply because he does not give everyone what they deserve.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
16–17"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."
As then in the one case, he means, some were saved and some were punished, so here also. This man was reserved for this very purpose. And then he again urges the objection.
Homily on Romans 16
The Jewish argument here goes like this: “It does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs; God has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills.” The apostle, though, does not take away what we possess in our own will.… For if the Jewish argument is correct, why does Paul run, as when he says: “I have finished the race,” and why does he urge others to run? For this reason it is understood that here Paul takes the role of the one who questions (and refutes), not of the one who denies.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
It is clear from this passage that the willing and running are ours, but the fulfillment of our willing and running belongs to the mercy of God. So it is that free will is preserved as far as our willing and running is concerned and that everything depends on the power of God as far as the fulfillment of our willing and running is concerned.
Against the Pelagians 1.5
Paul does not take away the freedom of the will but says that our will is not sufficient unless God helps us, making us compassionate so that we might do good works by the gift of the Holy Spirit.… We cannot will unless we are called, and when we will after our calling neither our will nor our striving is enough unless God gives strength to our striving and leads us where he calls. It is therefore clear that it is not by willing nor by striving but by the mercy of God that we do good works, even though our will (which by itself can do nothing) is also present.
On Romans 62
Isaac wanted to bless Esau; but Jacob hurried to the field so that, having caught game, he might receive the blessing from his father, and God by righteous judgment brought it about that Jacob, as entirely worthy, received the blessing. Here the apostle would seem to destroy free will; but in reality, no. Of a house we say that it is entirely the work of the master builder; although the master builder needs both materials and helpers in the construction, nevertheless, since it depends on him, we say that he built the whole house. So also of God we say that everything is His work, although God has need of our contribution as well. He accomplishes. He also gives the crowns, He also condemns; therefore we say that everything is the work of God.
Commentary on Romans
Then he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited, when he says so then it is not of him. This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one way thus: so a man's salvation is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action, which running is spoken of in 1 Corinthians: so run that you may obtain (1 Cor 9:25); but of God who shows mercy, i.e., it proceeds from the sole mercy of God. What follows from the authority cited is found in Deuteronomy: do not say in your heart: it is because of my justice that the Lord has brought me into this land (Deut 9:4). But it can be understood in another sense: all things proceed from God's mercy; so then it is not of him who wills to will nor of him who runs to exert oneself, but of God who shows mercy, as it says in 1 Corinthians: it was not I but the grace of God which is with me (1 Cor 15:10), and in John: without me you can do nothing (John 15:5). But if this is all that is understood in this word, since even grace without man's free judgment does not will or strive, he could have said the converse, namely, it does not depend on God's mercy but on man's will or exertion, which is offensive to pious ears. Consequently, something more must be understood from these words, if first place is to be given to God's grace. For an action is attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary, as when we say that the hammer does not make the box but the carpenter by using the hammer. But man's will is moved to good by God, as it says above: all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom 8:14); therefore, an inward action of man is not to be attributed principally to man but to God: it is God who of his good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13). But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will. But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover.
Commentary on Romans
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ τῷ Φαραὼ ὅτι εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε, ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δυναμίν μου, καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ.
Глаго́летъ бо писа́нїе фараѡ́нови: ꙗ҆́кѡ на и҆́стое сїѐ воздвиго́хъ тѧ̀, ꙗ҆́кѡ да покажꙋ̀ тобо́ю си́лꙋ мою̀, и҆ да возвѣсти́тсѧ и҆́мѧ моѐ по все́й землѝ.
It is certain that God not only knows everyone’s intention and will but that he foreknows them as well. Thus knowing and foreknowing, the good and just dispenser uses the motives and intention of each one in order to accomplish the works which the mind and will of each person has chosen.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
This Pharaoh (this was a royal title among the Egyptians and not a personal name, just as the rulers of Rome are called Caesars), was guilty of a great many crimes and unfit to live. He would never repent or in any way earn the right to live with God. But if anyone thought that God had made a mistake or that he was unable to take revenge on Pharaoh, let him listen to what God says.… Pharaoh was used by God in order that many signs and plagues might be revealed through him. Even though he was really dead, he appeared to be alive for a short while so that all those who were without God might be frightened by the punishment and the torments which they saw being inflicted on him and confess the one true God, by whom this revenge was being wreaked. In the same way the ancient physicians used to open up the bodies of people who deserved to die, while they were still alive, in order to find out what the causes of their disease might be and thus by punishing the dying bring saving health to the living.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
The Jews explain this passage in the wrong way as well. It is expounded by Christian interpreters in one of two ways. First, there are those who say that since each one will be punished when the measure and degree of his sins is complete … and Pharaoh had exceeded his limit, God desired to make an example of him for the benefit of others … so that God’s people might come to know his justice and power and neither dare to sin nor fear their enemies. The same thing that happened to Pharaoh happens when a doctor, seeking the cure for an illness, discovers a remedy in the course of torturing someone who has already been condemned to death for committing many crimes or when a judge, although he could punish a guilty man immediately, afflicts him first with various torments in order to rouse everyone’s fear.Second, there are those who say that Pharaoh was hardened by God’s patience, for after a plague from God was over Pharaoh became harder, and although God knew that Pharaoh had not repented he nevertheless wanted to show his forbearance even toward him.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
We read in Exodus [:] that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief. Nor should it be thought that Pharaoh did not obey because he could not, on the ground that his heart had already been hardened. On the contrary, Pharaoh had deserved his hardness of heart by his earlier unbelief. For in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith which is the beginning of merit, so that they might do good works by the gift of God. And in those whom he condemns unbelief and unfaithfulness are the beginning of punishment, so that by that very punishment they are permitted to do what is evil. on Romans Second, there are those who say that Pharaoh was hardened by God’s patience, for after a plague from God was over Pharaoh became harder, and although God knew that Pharaoh had not repented he nevertheless wanted to show his forbearance even toward him. Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans.
We read in Exodus [10:1] that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief. Nor should it be thought that Pharaoh did not obey because he could not, on the ground that his heart had already been hardened. On the contrary, Pharaoh had deserved his hardness of heart by his earlier unbelief.For in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith which is the beginning of merit, so that they might do good works by the gift of God. And in those whom he condemns unbelief and unfaithfulness are the beginning of punishment, so that by that very punishment they are permitted to do what is evil.
On Romans 62
God’s power is patience, and it is a very great power indeed. For who would not be overawed by the enormous patience of God? For he says that it is for this reason that he has agreed to let Pharaoh rule, that it may be shown how patient he is.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
As from those who made the calf, he reasons, some were saved and others punished, when God alone knew who was worthy of salvation and who of punishment: so, although there were many others who were wicked, only Pharaoh was subjected to the wrath of God. For this very reason, He says, I "raised you up," that is, I brought you, Pharaoh, into view, so that through you My power might be made known and many might restrain themselves, hearing of My name as just and mighty, throughout all the earth.
Commentary on Romans
Then he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked, when he says for the Scripture says. First, he quotes an authority; second, he draws the conclusion, at therefore he has mercy on whom he wills. He says, therefore: it has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity. But neither is there injustice in rejecting the wicked from all eternity. For out of God's mouth the Scripture says: to this purpose have I raised you, or according to another rendition: I have preserved you for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. But our letter has: and on that account I stationed you, that I might show my strength in you, that my name may be related in the whole earth. The first point to notice here is what God does in regard to the rejected. He shows this when he says: to this purpose have I raised you, i.e., you had deserved to die for the evils you had done: those who do such things deserve to die (Rom 1:32), but I did not call you to die at once; rather I preserved you in life for this purpose, namely, of showing my power in you. This interpretation can also be obtained from the version which reads: have I raised you, i.e., although before me you deserved to be dead, I granted you life, as if I had raised you up. From this it appears that God works no injustice against the rejected, since they deserved to be destroyed at once for their crimes; rather, the fact that he preserves their life proceeds from his exceeding goodness: correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment; and not in your fury, lest you bring me to nothing (Jer 10:24). Another interpretation is this, have I raised you for sin, that you might become worse. This should not be understood as though God causes sin in man; rather, it should be understood in a permissive sense, namely, that from his just judgment he permits some to fall into sin on account of previous sins, as it says above: God gave them up to a base mind (Rom 1:28). But it seems to me that still more must be understood here, namely, that men are moved to good and to evil by God through an inward prompting. Hence, Augustine says in his book On Grace and Free Will that God works in men's hearts to incline their wills whithersoever he wills, either to good through his mercy or to evil according to their deserts. Thus, God is said very often to stir up men to do good, as it says in Daniel: the Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young boy (Dan 13:45). He is also said to raise up others to do evil, as in Isaiah: I will stir up the Medes against them and with their arrows they shall kill the children (Isa 13:1). However, he stirs them to good and to evil in different ways: for he inclines men's wills to good directly as the author of these good deeds; but he is said to incline or stir up men to evil as an occasional cause, namely, inasmuch as God puts before a person, either in him or outside of him something which of itself is conducive to good but which through his own malice he uses for evil: do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath (Rom 2:4–5) and God gave his place for penance: and he abused it unto pride (Job 24:23). Similarly, as far as in him lies, God enlightens a man inwardly to good, say a king to defend the rights of his kingdom or to punish rebels. But he abuses this good impulse according to the malice of his heart. This is plain in Isaiah where it is said of Assyria: against a godless nation I send him and against the people of my wrath I command him to take spoil and seize plunder (Isa 10:6), and further on: but he does not so intend, and his mind does not so think, but it is in his mind to destroy. That is the way it happened with Pharaoh, who, when he was prompted by God to defend his kingdom, abused this suggestion and practiced cruelty. Second, there is need to consider the purpose behind God's doing certain things and permitting certain things. For one must remember that God works in creatures to manifest himself, as it says in Romans: his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:20); hence these promptings are ordained to this manifestation both for those present, for the very purpose of showing my power in you, and Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians (Exod 14:3), and for those absent, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. Declare his glory among the gentiles (Ps 95:3). Thus, it is clear that in this matter there in no injustice in God, because he uses his creature according to its merits for his glory. And it can be interpreted in the same sense if it be said have I raised you, i.e., I have ordered your malice to my glory; for God orders the malice, but does not cause it.
Commentary on Romans
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
ἄρα οὖν ὃν θέλει ἐλεεῖ, ὃν δὲ θέλει σκληρύνει.
[Заⷱ҇ 102] Тѣ́мже ᲂу҆̀бо є҆го́же хо́щетъ, ми́лꙋетъ: а҆ є҆го́же хо́щетъ, ѡ҆жесточа́етъ.
Pharaoh’s heart was hardened in the following way: God did not want to punish him immediately and completely. Although Pharaoh’s wickedness was enormous, God in his patience did not withdraw the possibility of conversion from him. Instead he struck him lightly at first and then gradually increased the blows. But although God acted with patience, Pharaoh was hardened by that very thing and became even more angry with God and contemptuous of him.… Therefore it is not that God hardens whom he wills, but rather that whoever is not softened by his patience is thereby automatically hardened.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Someone may object that Pharaoh cannot have been hardened, nor can anyone else who falls into sin, since in that case they would not be guilty of the hardening which has come upon them. But in saying this, O Man, you are going beyond yourself and seeking the secret reason for this inequality in God. There is no injustice here, the apostle said, because the refusal to show mercy on a sinner is due to the foreknowledge of the divine wisdom and not to some judicial reward. In this respect the apostle goes on to say that it is not up to men to sound the hidden depths of God, for the message of salvation is properly administered to all, whether mercy is shown to them or not.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
Here Paul assumes the role of an objector who makes these assumptions.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
18–19"Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he then find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" See what pains he takes to embarrass the subject in every way. And the answer he does not produce forthwith, it being a useful thing not to do so, but he first stops the disputant's mouth, saying as follows.
Homily on Romans 16
If this is understood to mean that God has mercy on whom he wills and hardens whom he wills because there is enough wickedness, then your argument will be lost, viz., the argument that not you but the will of the Lord, to which there can be no opposition, is the cause of your sins. The very nature of God’s justice opposes this reasoning.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
He enables the one on whom he has mercy to do good, and he leaves the one whom he hardens to do evil. But that mercy is the result of the prior merit of faith, and that hardening is the fruit of prior unbelief, so that we do good deeds by the gift of God and evil deeds because of his punishment. Yet in either case free will is not taken away from man, whether it is to believe in God, so that mercy on us might follow, or to disbelieve in him, so that punishment on us might be the result.
On Romans 62
Why does the Father not teach all people in order that they might come to Christ, unless it is that all those whom he teaches, he teaches because of mercy, but those whom he does not teach, he does not teach because of judgment?
Predestination of the Saints 8.14
You must believe that the man whom God permits to go astray and to become hardened has deserved this evil, while in the case of the man upon whom he has mercy, you must acknowledge with an unswerving faith that this is a case of the grace of God, who is rendering not evil for evil but good for evil.
Grace and Free Will 23.45
He draws a conclusion and proves that one should not demand an account from God. God has mercy on whom He wills, as He did with the Israelites who cast the calf, and hardens whom He wills, as happened with Pharaoh. What then does "hardens" mean? It would seem absurd. But it is said of God that He made the filthy heart of Pharaoh hard in the same way that the sun makes mud hard. In what manner? By longsuffering; for He made him hard by showing longsuffering toward him. Here something similar occurred to what happens when someone who has a wicked servant treats him with kindness. The more kindly he treats him, the worse he makes him — not because he himself teaches him vice, but because the servant uses his longsuffering to increase his own wickedness, because he despises that longsuffering.
Commentary on Romans
Then when he says, therefore, he has mercy on whom he wills, he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited. From the statement I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, he concludes: therefore he has mercy upon whom he wills: the Lord has mercy on them that fear him (Ps 103:11); from the text, have I raised you, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills: you have hardened our heart, so that we fear you not (Isa 3:17); some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them has he cursed and brought low (Sir 33:12). There seems to be no difficulty about God's mercy, once we grant what has been said above. But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening. First, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sirach: a hard heart shall fear evil at the last (Sir 3:27). Consequently, if God hardens the heart, he is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in James: God is no tempter to evil (Jas 1:13). The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though he causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace. The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: this is the will of God, your sanctification (1 Thess 4:3) and he desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just. Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy on whom he wills through his mercy and he hardens whom he wills through his justice, because those whom he hardens deserve to be hardened by him, as was stated above (Rom 1).
Commentary on Romans
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Ἐρεῖς οὖν μοι· τί ἔτι μέμφεται; τῷ γὰρ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ τίς ἀνθέστηκε;
Рече́ши ᲂу҆̀бо мѝ: чесѡ̀ ра́ди є҆щѐ ᲂу҆корѧ́етъ, во́ли бо є҆гѡ̀ кто̀ проти́витисѧ мо́жетъ;
It is certain that no one can resist God’s will, but it is good for us to remember that his will is just and right. Whether we are good or bad depends on our will, but it is God’s will that the bad person is destined to punishment and the good person is destined to glory.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Paul teaches us first that nobody can resist God’s will because he is more powerful than anyone else. Next he teaches us that God is the Father of all and therefore does not want anyone to suffer evil. What God has made he wants to remain unharmed.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
Having given his conclusion [in the last verse] Paul plays devil’s advocate by asking a rhetorical question.… He responds to this question in a sensible way so that we might understand that the basic rewards of faith and of unbelief are made plain only to spiritual people and not to those who live according to the earthly man. Likewise with the way God in his foreknowledge elects those who will believe and condemns unbelievers. He neither elects the ones because of their works nor condemns the others because of theirs, but he grants to the faith of the ones the ability to do good works and hardens the unbelief of the others by deserting them, so that they do evil. This understanding, as I have said, is given only to spiritual people and is very different from the wisdom of the flesh. Thus Paul counters his inquirer so that he may understand that he first must put away the man of clay in order to be worthy to investigate these things by the Spirit.
On Romans 62
The Apostle, as I have repeatedly said, strives in every way to prove that the dispensations and judgments of God are known to God alone, and therefore everywhere gathers a multitude of difficulties and does not offer solutions, so that, having placed the listener in a difficult position, he might convince him that the dispensations and judgments of God are incomprehensible to man and surpass his understanding. The meaning of the present passage is as follows. The Apostle presents an objection and a perplexity. If God hardens whom He wills, then why does He still blame the sinner? For who can resist His will? He willed it and hardened, and the hardened one sinned justly: how then can He blame and punish him? The Apostle presented precisely such an objection in order to show that the perplexity about this can be resolved by God alone; which is why he does not resolve it himself, but stops the mouth of the one who is perplexed.
Commentary on Romans
Having solved the question proposed, the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills (Rom 9:18). First, he places the objection; second, the solution, at O man, who are you. First, therefore, he says: we have said that God has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills. You will say therefore to me: why does he still find fault? i.e., what need is there to inquire any further into the cause of the good and evil done here, since all things are attributed to the divine will, which is a sufficient cause, since no one can resist him? Hence he continues: for who resists his will? I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven (Eccl 1:13). Or in another way: why does he still find fault? i.e., why does God complain about men when they sin, as in Isaiah: some have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me (Isa 1:2). Therefore, he does not seem to have a just complaint, because it all proceeds from his will, which no one can resist. Hence he adds: who resists his will? Or still another way: why does he still find fault, i.e., why is man still required to do good and avoid evil: he has showed you, O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and love mercy and walk with your God? (Mic 6:8). For it is useless to require of someone that which is not in his power. But nothing seems to lie in man's power, according to the above, in which all things seem ascribed to the divine will, which cannot be resisted. He adds: for who resists his will? As if to say: no one. There is none that can resist your will (Esth 13:11). And this seems to be the Apostle's meaning.
Commentary on Romans
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
μενοῦνγε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ Θεῷ; μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι, τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως;
Тѣ́мже ᲂу҆̀бо, ѽ, человѣ́че, ты̀ кто̀ є҆сѝ, проти́въ ѿвѣща́ѧй бг҃ови; є҆да̀ рече́тъ зда́нїе созда́вшемꙋ є҆̀: почто̀ мѧ̀ сотвори́лъ є҆сѝ та́кѡ;
In the same way the potter, too, has it in his power, by tempering the blast of his fire, to modify his clayey material into a stiffer one, and to mould one form after another more beautiful than the original substance, and now possessing both a kind and name of its own. For although the Scripture says, "Shall the clay say to the potter? " that is, Shall man contend with God? although the apostle speaks of "earthen vessels" he refers to man, who was originally clay.
On the Resurrection of the Flesh
I do not think that, if you are a faithful and discreet servant of God and want to understand and admire the wisdom of the Lord, he will say to you: “Who are you?” … If we want to know something of the secret and hidden things of God and if we are not people of lusts and contentions, then let us inquire faithfully and humbly into the judgments of God which are contained more secretly in holy Scripture. For even the Lord said: “Search the Scriptures,” knowing that these things are applicable not to those who are busy with other matters and only hear or read the Bible from time to time, but to those who with a pure and simple heart endeavor to open up the holy Scriptures by their labor and constant attention. I know well enough that I am not one of them! But anyone who is, let him seek and he will find.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Such a rebuke does not refer to one who is faithful and lives a good and righteous life and has confidence towards God.… This rebuke is not for the faithful and the saints but for the unfaithful and the ungodly.
On First Principles 3.1.22
It is a great indignity and presumption for a man to answer back to God—the unjust to the just, the evil to the good, the imperfect to the perfect, the weak to the strong, the corruptible to the incorrupt, the mortal to the immortal, the servant to the Lord, the creature to the Creator!
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
20–21"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" This he does to take down the objector's unseasonable inquisitiveness, and excessive curiosity, and to put a check upon it, and teach him to know what God is, and what man, and how incomprehensible His foreknowledge is, and how far above our reason, and how obedience to Him in all points is binding. So when he has made this preparatory step in his hearer, and has hushed and softened down his spirit, then with great felicity he introduces the answer, having made what he says easy of admittance with him.
And he does not say, it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that it is presumptuous to raise them. For our business is to obey what God does, not to be curious even if we do not know the reason of them. Wherefore he said, "Who art thou that repliest against God?" You see how very light he makes of him, how he bears down his swelling spirit!
"Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which followeth the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please.
And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, "He couched, he lay down as a lion;" let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion.
Homily on Romans 16
Some people say that Paul is still speaking here in the role of those who object, because to say that nobody can oppose the will of God, who has mercy on one and who hardens another, and to add that nobody should criticize God amounts to the same thing. But others say that from here on the apostle replies that, even if there were a reason for them to make an accusation, they ought not to talk back to their Creator, for in comparison with God, we are like a piece of pottery in the hands of the potter.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
How can the thing which is made blame its Maker for the construction of its own nature? Everything must be content with its own nature, whatever that may be.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
As long as you are just a creature, says Paul, like this lump of clay, and you have not been led to spiritual things, so that as a spiritual man you might judge all things and be judged by no one, it is right for you to hold back from this kind of inquiry and not to answer back to God. For everyone who wants to know God’s plan ought first to be received into his friendship, and this is only possible for spiritual people who already bear the image of the heavenly.
On Romans 62
If you did not have your own independence, and if you did not choose what you do by your own free will, you would have to be quiet in the way that inanimate objects are and simply acquiesce in what is given to you. But as it is you have reason, and you can both describe and do the things which are shown to you. Instead you do not like what has happened and are trying to investigate the causes of the divine plan.
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
Do you see how he stops untimely curiosity, puts on a bridle, and teaches one to know the difference between God and man? "But who are you?" Do you share with God in governance? Are you a judge of what He ought to do or not do? To say that this should be done in one way and that in another means to argue with God and act contrary to Him. But this must by no means be done; rather, one must submissively accept what God has done, however it may have been done. Paul used this example not in order to destroy our free will and present us as inactive and immovable, but in order to teach us how we ought to submit to God and show Him deep and silent obedience.
Commentary on Romans
Then he answers the question, at O man, who are you. To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does he will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one? Although a reason other than God's will can be assigned in the first question, the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God's absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top and others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the top and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed. First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why he has mercy on this one and hardens that one; second, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why he is merciful to some and hardens others, at what if God. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he censures the questioner's presumption; second, he cites an authority which solves the question, at shall the thing formed say to him who formed it; third, he explains the authority, at or has not the potter power. First, therefore, he says: O man, who are you, fragile and unknowing, who replies against God? How would you answer him, if he were to contend with you in judgment? If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times (Job 9:3). Again, as it says in Job: he who argues with God, let him answer him (Job 39:30). In this we are given to understand that man should not examine the reason for God's judgments with the intention of comprehending them, for they exceed human reason: seek not the things that are too high for you (Sir 3:22); he that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27). Then, when he says shall the thing formed, he cites the authority of Isaiah: shall the thing made say of its maker, he did not make me? (Isa 29:16). Here it should be noted that if an artisan uses base matter to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all ascribed to the goodness of the artisan; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving-dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such base matter, say clay, he produced a vessel adapted to meaner uses, for example, for cooking or such, the vessel, if it could think, would have no complaint. But it could complain, if from precious metals, such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses. But human nature has baseness about it from its matter, because as Genesis says: God formed man of dust from the ground (Gen 2:7), and more baseness after being spoiled by sin, which entered this world through one man. That is why man is compared to dirt, in Job: I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes (Job 30:19). Hence, any good that man possesses is due to God's goodness as its basic source: O Lord, you are our Father, we are the clay, and you are the potter, we are all the work of your hands (Isa 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance man to better things but leaves him in his weakness and reserves him for the lowliest use, he does him no injury such that he could justly complain about God.
Commentary on Romans
The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God in the dock.
God in the Dock, from God in the Dock
[Lewis describes his pre-conversion resentment at having been created, illustrating the creature's rebellion against the Creator's sovereign act]
I was also, as you may remember, one whose negative demands were more violent than his positive, far more eager to escape pain than to achieve happiness, and feeling it something of an outrage that I had been created without my own permission. To such a craven the materialist's universe had the enormous attraction that it offered you limited liabilities. No strictly infinite disaster could overtake you in it. Death ended all. And if ever finite disasters proved greater than one wished to bear, suicide would always be possible. The horror of the Christian universe was that it had no door marked Exit.
Surprised by Joy, Ch. 11: Check
But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.
Mere Christianity, Book 2, Chapter 3: The Shocking Alternative
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν;
И҆лѝ не и҆́мать вла́сти скꙋде́льникъ на бре́нїи, ѿ тогѡ́жде смѣше́нїѧ сотвори́ти ѻ҆́въ ᲂу҆́бѡ сосꙋ́дъ въ че́сть, ѻ҆́въ же не въ че́сть;
The vessel is the flesh, because it was made of clay by the breath of God, and only afterward was it clothed with the coat of skin.
On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8
Remember the incident in Jeremiah when the prophet went down to the potter’s house and found him reworking a clay vessel which was spoiled, as it seemed good to him to do. Then the Lord said: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.” It seems to me that no more need be said on the subject.…Someone who does not cleanse himself and does not wash away his sins by repentance is a vessel fit only for menial use. If he goes on and increases in wickedness so that his mind is hardened and his impenitent heart ends up despising everything God commands, then he will no longer be fit even for menial use but will become a vessel fit only for destruction.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
If both the saved and the lost come from one lump of clay, then the nature of their souls will be not different but the same.
On First Principles 3.1.21
The substance of the clay is the same, but the will of the potter is different. Likewise God made us all of the same substance and we all became sinners, but he had mercy on one and rejected another, not without justice. The potter has only a will, but God has a will and justice to go with it. For he knows who ought to be shown mercy, as I have already said.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
Do not dare to condemn God or imagine that he showed mercy on one and hardened another by accident, for it was according to the power of his foreknowledge that he gave each one his due. Nor is he guilty because he knew in advance what would happen, but rather each of those who was foreknown in this way is responsible for his own actions, whether good or evil.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
Whoever heard of a clay pot made for menial use blaming the potter for the way it was made and demanding to be remolded for some better purpose?
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
As long as you are a potter’s vessel, you must first be broken by the iron rod of which it was said: “You will rule them with a rod of iron, and you will break them as a potter’s vessel.” Then, when the outer man is destroyed and the inner man is renewed, you will be able, rooted and grounded in love, to understand what is the length and breadth and height and depth, to know even the overwhelming knowledge of the love of God. So because from the same lump of clay God has made some vessels for noble use and others for ignoble, it is not for you, whoever you are who still lives according to this lump (that is, who are wise by the standards of earthly sense and the flesh), to dispute what God has decreed.
On Romans 62
First comes the clay which is fit only to be thrown away. We must begin with this but need not remain in it. Afterward comes what is fit for use, into which we can be gradually molded and in which, once molded, we can remain. This does not mean that everyone who is wicked will become good but that no one becomes good who was not once wicked. What is true is that the sooner a man makes a change in himself for the better, the sooner he has a right to be called what he has become.
City of God 15.1
Given that our nature sinned in paradise, we are now formed through a mortal begetting by the same divine providence, not according to heaven but according to earth, i. e., not according to the spirit but according to the flesh, and we have all become one mass of clay, i.e., a mass of sin.
Questions 68.3
If this lump of clay were of such indifferent value that it deserved nothing good any more than it deserved anything evil, there would be reason to see injustice in making of it a vessel unto dishonor. But when through the free will of the first man alone, condemnation extended to the whole lump of clay, it is undoubtedly true that if vessels are made of it unto honor, it is a question not of justice not forestalling grace, but of God’s mercy. If however, vessels are made of it unto dishonor, this is to be attributed to God’s justice, not to his injustice—a concept which can hardly exist with God!
Letter 186
It would seem unjust that vessels of wrath should be made unto destruction if the whole lump of clay has not been condemned in Adam. The fact that men become vessels of wrath at birth is due to the penalty they deserve, but that they become vessels of mercy at their second birth is due to an undeserved grace.
Letter 190
It is not possible to say on the basis of this [verse] that there are different types of human nature, nor does holy Scripture claim that some people have been made cruel or obdurate or even vessels of honor and wickedness, nor does it attribute this kind of nature to them. Rather, it should be understood to mean that some men are made like clay vessels and that we use them either for honor or for dishonor.
Explanation of the Letter to the Romans
Those who are called vessels for menial use have chosen this path for themselves.… This is clear from what Paul says to Timothy: “If anyone purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.”
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
As a potter makes whatever he pleases from one and the same clay, and not one of the vessels contradicts him, so you too should not ask God why He punishes some people and rewards others, even though they are of one and the same race; rather, revere Him and imitate the clay. As it is submissive to the hand of the potter, so you too be submissive to the decree of the Ruler of the universe. Know then, reader, that just as with vessels it does not depend on the clay that one turns out for honorable use and another for common use (for the clay is one and the same), but on the use made by those who employ the vessel, so too with people it does not depend on nature that some are worthy of punishment and others of rewards (for nature is one and the same), but on free will.
Commentary on Romans
Then the Apostle explains the words of the prophet, when he says or has not the potter power. As if to say what is molded, i.e., the vessel, should not say to the potter: why have you made me thus? because the potter is free to make anything he wishes out of the clay. Hence he says: or has not the potter power over the clay, to make without any injury to it, of the same lump of base matter one vessel unto honor, i.e., for honorable use and another unto dishonor, i.e., for meaner uses: in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. (2 Tim 2:20). In the same way God has free power to make from the same spoiled matter of the human race, as from clay, and without any injustice some men prepared for glory and some abandoned in wretchedness: behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel (Jer 18:6).
Commentary on Romans
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ Θεὸς ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ ἤνεγκεν ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ σκεύη ὀργῆς κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν;
А҆́ще же хотѧ̀ бг҃ъ показа́ти гнѣ́въ сво́й и҆ ꙗ҆ви́ти си́лꙋ свою̀, пренесѐ во мно́зѣ долготерпѣ́нїи сосꙋ́ды гнѣ́ва совершє́ны въ поги́бель:
I am astonished when I examine the Holy Spirit’s purpose in the Scriptures. For he says that the wrath of God, which is foreign to his nature, will be made known to men … but that his goodness and mercy, which are proper to his nature, will be concealed and hidden.… Why should God reveal his wrath to men and conceal his mercy? No doubt it is because God knows that the human race is weak and prone to fall through negligence, and that it is therefore better for them to be under the fear of wrath than to relax in the hope of God’s mercy and forgiveness.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
This means that unbelievers are made ready for punishment by the will and longsuffering of God, which is his patience. For although he has waited a long time for them, they have not repented. He has waited a long time so that they should be without excuse, for God knew all along that they would not believe.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
22–24"What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."
What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath of God. For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calleth him not only "a vessel of wrath," but also one "fitted for destruction." That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self. For neither had God left out aught of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out aught of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew this, "He endured him with much long-suffering," being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath, He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power.
For that it is not God's wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul does not wish to appear powerful in this way ("not that we should appear approved," he says, "but that ye should do that which is honest"), much less doth God. But after that he had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins but repented, He manifested His love toward man.
Homily on Romans 16
God put up with Pharaoh for a long time while Pharaoh blasphemed and oppressed his people with hard labor and even had ordered that innocent little children be put to death. By filling up the quota of their sins, people like Pharaoh become vessels worthy of wrath, and by their own doing they prepare themselves for destruction.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
What Paul is saying is this: God has made this present life one of struggles and not of reward, and he agrees that wicked men and good ones alike will be tested in both good and bad things in order to have an exact touchstone for the predestination of each person. In this way those who are good will follow the path of virtue and will cling to it through all the changes of life, neither boasting in the good times nor being unable to bear reverses. Wicked people, on the other hand, will in all circumstances be shown to be lovers of evil, ignorant of the reason for their good fortune when they enjoy it and exaggerating the wretchedness of their condition when they suffer grief. God gives each of these what they deserve in the next life.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
Paul has sufficiently demonstrated that the hardness of heart which came to Pharaoh came as the just deserts of his earlier unbelief. Yet God patiently endured his unbelief until the time came for him to mete out his punishment. God did this in order to correct those whom he had decided to set free from error and to lead them by calling them back to reverence and godliness, offering his aid to their prayers and sighings.
On Romans 63
Of course God is not subject to the passion of wrath. It is when he does what we do when we are angry that he calls it “wrath,” so that we will understand what he means.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
Having shut the mouth of the curious, he now gives the solution. The meaning of what is said is as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his hardheartedness kindles the wrath of God. God "endured" him, that is, bore with him, was patient; for He deemed him worthy of great longsuffering. But he used this longsuffering for hardening and became a vessel fitted to receive wrath, complete for destruction, that is, prepared for it by himself and of his own will, because he omitted nothing that served for his destruction, but did everything that drew him toward destruction. Otherwise: "endured," that is, set him forth publicly, so that, since he did not become better from the longsuffering, He might punish him and show His own power, so that from this others might become better.
Commentary on Romans
Then, when he says what if God, willing, he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works is the manifestation of divine goodness: the Lord has made all things for himself (Prov 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:20). But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which he is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom his justice is manifested with regard to those he punishes according to their deserts and his mercy in those he delivers by his grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in man he mercifully delivers some, but not all. First, therefore, he gives an account of the rejections of the wicked; second, of the election of the good, at that he might show the riches. In both cases three differences should be considered. First, with respect to the end; second, with respect to use; third, with respect to the divine act. Now the end of the rejection or hardening of the wicked is the manifestation of divine justice and power. Referring to this he says: what, i.e., but, if God, willing to show his wrath, i.e., retaliatory justice. For wrath is said of God not as an emotion but as the effect of retaliation: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven (Rom 1:18). Then he adds: and to make his power known, because God not only uses wrath, i.e., retribution, by punishing those subject to him, but also by subjecting them to himself by his power: according to his work by which he can subject all things to himself (Phil 3:21); and they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them (Exod 14:31). The use which God makes of the wicked is wrath, i.e., punishment. And this is why he calls them vessels of wrath, i.e., instruments of justice that God uses to show wrath, i.e., retributive justice: we were by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). But God's action toward them is not that he disposes them to evil, since they of themselves have a disposition to evil from the corruption of the first sin. Hence he says fitted for destruction, i.e., having in themselves a disposition toward eternal condemnation: God saw that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times (Gen 6:5). The only thing God does concerning them is that he lets them do what they want. Hence not without meaning does he say endured. And the fact that he does not exact retribution immediately shows his patience; so he adds with much patience: the Most High is a patient rewarder (Sir 5:4).
Commentary on Romans
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σκεύη ἐλέους,ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν;
и҆ да ска́жетъ бога́тство сла́вы своеѧ̀ на сосꙋ́дѣхъ млⷭ҇ти, ꙗ҆̀же пред̾ꙋгото́ва въ сла́вꙋ,
The riches of God are made known when his mercy is shown toward those who are rejected by men and who are downtrodden, who put their hope not in their own riches or in their own strength but in the Lord.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
It is God’s patience and long-suffering that, just as he prepares the wicked for destruction, so also he prepares the good for their reward. For the good are those who have the hope of faith. God preserves everyone knowing what the destiny of each will be. Therefore, it is a sign of his patience that those who have been rescued from evil or who persevere in good works he prepares for glory.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
In giving to some what they did not deserve God obviously wanted his grace to be gratuitous and therefore genuinely grace, and in not giving it to all he showed what all deserved. He is good in the benefit given to certain people and just in the punishment of others but good in all things, for it is good when that which is deserved is given, and just in all things, as it is just when that which is not merited is given without injury to anyone.
Gift of Perseverance 12.28
We who were vessels of wrath through our first birth have deserved to become vessels of mercy through the second one. The first birth brought us forth unto death, but the second one recalled us to life. All of us were temples of the devil before baptism, but after baptism we were made ready to become temples of Christ.
Sermon 229
Just as by punishing him who had become a vessel of wrath by his own choice, God showed His power, so by having mercy on many who had sinned but had become worthy of mercy — the Gentiles — He manifested "the riches of His glory." He did not say: of His love for mankind, but: "of glory," for the perfect glory of God consists in showing mercy. Furthermore, "which He had prepared beforehand," that is, foreknew.
Commentary on Romans
Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things. First, the end, when he says that he might show the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory. And this is the meaning of that he might show the riches of his glory, the riches concerning which he said above: or do you despise the riches of his goodness? (Rom 2:4). God who is rich in mercy (Eph 2:4). And it is significant that he says that he might show the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and reprobation of the wicked, carried out in accord with God's justice, makes known and highlights the glory of the saints, who were freed from such misery as this. Second, he describes their use, when he says on the vessels of mercy. He names them vessels of mercy because God uses them as instruments to show his mercy: these were men of mercy (Sir 44:10). Third, he sets out God's action in their regard. For God does not merely endure them, as though they were of themselves disposed to the good, but rather he prepares and disposes them by calling them to glory. Hence he says which he has prepared unto glory: preparing the mountains by your power (Ps 64:7). Even to this point the Apostle uses an incomplete and suspensive construction, so that the meaning is: if God wants to do this, to have mercy on some and harden others, what can justly be said against it? As though to imply: nothing. For he does not will to harden them in such a way that he compels them to sin, but rather he endures them so that they may tend to evil by their own inclination.
Commentary on Romans
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν,
и҆̀хже и҆ призва̀ на́съ не то́чїю ѿ і҆ꙋдє́й, но и҆ ѿ ꙗ҆зы̑къ:
God has called those whom he has prepared for glory, who he knew would persevere in faith, whether they are near at hand or far away.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
Since even then some of the Egyptians left with the children of Israel … so too now God has called not only Jews but also Gentiles to faith.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
God did not call all the Jews but only some of them. Nor did he call all the Gentiles but only some of them. From Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and godless men, in which both Jews and Gentiles belong to one lump, apart from the grace of God. If the potter out of one lump of clay makes one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, it is clear that God has made of the Jews some vessels for honor and others for dishonor, and similarly of the Gentiles.
To Simplician on Various Questions 1.2.19
And he did not say: He saved all the Gentiles, but: "from among the Gentiles," that is, some. Therefore do not be offended, O Jew. Behold, even among the Gentiles some receive mercy, and others do not.
Commentary on Romans
After showing that God's grace is given to men as a result of God's election through which men are called to grace, the Apostle shows that such election or calling applies not only to the Jews—as if they could boast on account of what is said in Deuteronomy: he loved your fathers (Deut 4:37)—but also to the gentiles. First, he states the intended proposition; second, he proves it, at as in Hosea he says; third, he draws the conclusion, at what then shall we say? First, therefore, he says: we have stated that God prepared the saints for glory, whom he also has called, namely, by his grace, not only of the Jews but also of the gentiles: is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also? (Rom 3:29); they shall adore him, every man from his own place, all the islands of the gentiles (Zeph 2:11).
Commentary on Romans
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει· καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου, καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην·
ꙗ҆́коже и҆ во ѡ҆сі́и гл҃етъ: нарекꙋ̀ не лю́ди моѧ̑ лю́ди моѧ̑, и҆ невозлю́бленꙋю возлю́бленꙋ:
For Matthew the apostle-knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved-declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ...
Against Heresies Book 3
For this reason did Hosea the prophet take "a wife of whoredoms," prophesying by means of the action, "that in committing fornication the earth should fornicate from the Lord," that is, the men who are upon the earth; and from men of this stamp it will be God's good pleasure to take out a Church which shall be sanctified by fellowship with His Son, just as that woman was sanctified by intercourse with the prophet. And for this reason, Paul declares that the "unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband." Then again, the prophet names his children, "Not having obtained mercy," and "Not a people," in order that, as says the apostle, "what was not a people may become a people; and she who did not obtain mercy may obtain mercy. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said, This is not a people, there shall they be called the children of the living God." That which had been done typically through his actions by the prophet, the apostle proves to have been done truly by Christ in the Church.
Against Heresies Book 4
It is clear that this was said about the Gentiles, who once were not God’s people, but afterward, to the chagrin of the Jews, received mercy and are called God’s people. Once they were not loved, but when the Jews fell away they were adopted as children and are now loved, so that where once they were not called God’s people, now they are called children of the living God.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved." Here to prevent their saying, that you are deceiving us here with specious reasoning, he calls Hosea to witness, who crieth and saith, "I will call them My people, who were not My people." Who then are the not-people? Plainly, the Gentiles. And who the not-beloved? The same again. However, he says, that they shall become at once people, and beloved, and sons of God.
Homily on Romans 16
The gist of the entire argument leads to this conclusion. Paul taught that we do good by the mercy of God and that the Jews who had received the gospel should not glory in their works, thinking that they had deserved this and not wanting it to be given to the Gentiles. In Paul’s mind, the Jews should cease from such pride and understand that if we are called to faith not through our own works but by the mercy of God and if it is given to those who believe to do good, then they should not begrudge the Gentiles this mercy as if it had been given to the Jews on the ground of prior merit, which is nothing.
On Romans 64
This passage originally applied to Jews, not to Gentiles.… It meant that God’s people would lose their status and be called “Not my people” and “Not beloved.” But then God promised that the rejected Jews would be called back again. Thus from having been God’s people and then rejected they would return.… The Gentiles, on the other hand, would become God’s people for the first time, having never been his people before.
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
The Jews could say: you, Paul, are deceiving us by saying this. Therefore he brings forward Hosea, who cries out and says: "I will call those who were not My people, My people." Who then was "not His people"? The Gentiles. And who was "not beloved"? The Gentile Church. Yet the Gentiles became a people and beloved.
Commentary on Romans
Then he proves the proposition, when he says as in Hosea he says: first, with respect to the gentiles; second, the Jews, at and Isaiah cried out. In regard to the first he cites two texts from Hosea speaking for the gentiles: the first of these promises them God's gifts; the second, divine sonship, at and it shall be in the place where it was said unto them. First, therefore, he says: as the Lord says in Hosea, because it was he who spoke in the prophets: the Spirit of the Lord spoke through me, his word is upon my tongue (2 Sam 23:2). Hence, too, it says in Hosea: when the Lord first spoke through Hosea (Hos 1:2). Here it should be noted that the gentiles were cut off from three blessings for which the Jews were famous: first, divine sonship, by reason of which they were called the people of God, as though serving him and obeying his precepts: we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his herd (Ps 95:7). But the gentiles were alienated from the society of this people, as it says in Ephesians: alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise (Eph 2:12). However, through Christ they have become God's people: he gave himself for us to purify for himself a people of his own (Titus 2:14). And that is what he says: I will call those who were not my people, i.e., the gentiles, my people, i.e., that they be my people. The second is the privilege of divine love: the Lord loves the people of Israel (Hos 3:1), because he offered them many benefits leading to special graces. From this love the gentiles had formerly been excluded: alienated from God's truth because of the ignorance that is in them (Eph 3:18). Hence, he says: and her who was not beloved, i.e., the gentile races, I will call my beloved. You who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13); while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Rom 5:10). The third is deliverance from original sin through circumcision: the Lord will have compassion on Jacob (Isa 14:1). But the gentiles had no share in this compassion: on the day you were born your navel string was not out and no eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you (Exod 16:5). But later through Christ they obtained compassion. Similarly it follows: and her who had not obtained mercy, one who has obtained mercy. He saved us in virtue of his own mercy (Titus 3:5). He cites this text from Hosea according to the Septuagint, in the place where our text has: I will have mercy on her who was without mercy, and I will say to not my people: you are my people (Hos 2:23).
Commentary on Romans
And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς, οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ζῶντος.
и҆ бꙋ́детъ, на мѣ́стѣ, и҆дѣ́же рече́сѧ и҆̀мъ: не лю́дїе моѝ є҆стѐ вы̀, та́мѡ нарекꙋ́тсѧ сн҃ове бг҃а жива́гѡ.
"For even they shall be called," he says, "the children of the living God." But if they should assert that this was said of those of the Jews who believed, even then the argument stands. For if with those who after so many benefits were hard-hearted and estranged, and had lost their being as a people, so great a change was wrought, what is there to prevent even those who were not estranged after being taken to Him, but were originally aliens, from being called, and, provided they obey, from being counted worthy of the same blessings?
Homily on Romans 16
Those who think that this is not Paul talking but the Jews interpret it to mean: “God saved as many as he wished, so that he chose even Gentile idolaters who had never served God, and called few from Israel, as Isaiah testifies.”
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
And even, what is more important, sons of the living God. If someone should say that this was spoken about the Jews who had conducted themselves ungratefully but were afterwards received into grace, such an argument does not harm our explanation. For if this acceptance happened with them, what prevented it from happening with the Gentiles?
Commentary on Romans
Then, when he says and it shall be in the place, he cites another text from Hosea in which they are promised the dignity of being sons of God (Hos 1:10), about which the Jews boasted because, as it says in Isaiah: sons have I reared and brought up (Isa 1:2) and in Deuteronomy: is he not your father? (Deut 32:6). For the gentiles not only were not called sons, which applies to those who serve God out of love and are led by the Spirit of God (Rom 8:14); they were not even worthy to be called the people of God, which could apply at least to those who had received the spirit of servitude in fear. Hence, he says, and it shall be in the place, i.e., in Judea, where it was said unto them, i.e., to the gentiles by the Jews speaking as though in God's person: you are not my people, because they did not consider them God's people, there, i.e., even among the believing Jews, they shall be called the sons of the living God. Or in the place, i.e., in the entire world where they will be converted to the faith. This would indicate that they would not be converted in the same way as proselytes, who would leave their native land and journey to Judea. That this would not happen in the case of those converted to Christ is shown in Zephaniah: to him they shall bow down, each in his own place (Zeph 2:11). Therefore, to each one living in his own place, where it was said to them in former times, you are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God by divine adoption: to all who believed in his name, he gave them power to become children of God (John 1:12).
Commentary on Romans
Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Ἡσαΐας δὲ κράζει ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ· ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειμμα σωθήσεται·
И҆са́їа же вопїе́тъ ѡ҆ і҆и҃ли: а҆́ще бꙋ́детъ число̀ сынѡ́въ і҆и҃левыхъ ꙗ҆́кѡ песо́къ морскі́й, ѡ҆ста́нокъ спасе́тсѧ:
Paul says this because Isaiah was crying out for those who would believe in Christ. It is these who are the true Israel…. The others have gone away from the law because they have not believed in him whom the law promised would alone be sufficient for salvation. Therefore they became apostate, because by not accepting Christ they became lawbreakers. Therefore, of that great number only those who God foreknew would believe have been saved. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.
"For Esaias," he says, "crieth concerning Israel." That is, speaks out boldly, and uses no dissimulation. Why then lay a charge against us, when they afore declared the same thing with more than trumpet's loudness? And what does Isaiah cry? "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved."
Do you see that he too does not say that all are to be saved, but that those that are worthy shall? For I regard not the multitude, he means, nor does a race diffused so far distress me, but those only do I save that yield themselves worthy of it. And he does not mention the "sand of the sea" without a reason, but to remind them of the ancient promise whereof they had made themselves unworthy. Why then are you troubled, as though the promise had failed, when all the Prophets show that it is not all that are to be saved?
Homily on Romans 16
Here Isaiah showed that only a few Jews would believe.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
This shows that the Lord is the cornerstone, uniting both walls in himself. Hosea’s testimony is spoken of the Gentiles, but the Lord unites both Jews and Gentiles, according to what he said in the gospel about the latter: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.”
On Romans 65
If by remnant … we are to understand not election of the justified to eternal life but election of those who are to be justified, that kind of election is truly hidden and cannot be known by us, who must regard all men as parts of a single lump of clay. If some claim to be able to know it, I must confess my own weakness in this matter.
To Simplician on Various Questions 1.2.22
He was not satisfied with pointing to Hosea, but brings Isaiah as a witness as well, who "proclaims," that is, boldly and fearlessly, that not all the Israelites will be saved, but those worthy of salvation (for this is what the remnant means, that is, the chosen), whom God left and set apart, that is, as worthy. By saying "as the sand of the sea," he reminds them of the Old Testament promise, of which they had made themselves unworthy. Therefore, do not be troubled, as though the promise has been broken. All the prophets foretell that not all are worthy of salvation.
Commentary on Romans
Then, when he says Isaiah cried out, he proves his proposition with respect to the Jews and presents two texts from Isaiah. The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe; the second particularly to the apostles, at and Isaiah foretold. First, therefore, he says: we have indicated what Hosea said about the gentiles, but Isaiah cried out, i.e., clearly speaks about the conversion of Israel: cry, cease not, lift up your voice like a trumpet (Isa 58:1). In this first citation he first shows how few will be converted from Israel, saying: if the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, i.e., innumerable in light of the multitude of nations: I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore (Gen 22:17); Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea (1 Sam 4:20), a remnant shall be saved, i.e., not all, not the majority, but a certain few who will be left after the pruning: I am become as one who gleans in autumn the grapes of the vintage (Mic 7:1); at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace (Rom 11:5).
Commentary on Romans
For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει Κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
сло́во бо скончава́ѧ и҆ сокраща́ѧ въ пра́вдѣ, ꙗ҆́кѡ сло́во сокраще́но сотвори́тъ гдⷭ҇ь на землѝ,
Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness," He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance, to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord-that is, Christ" was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth."
Against Marcion Book 4
This has been done in Christ, who said: “Moses wrote about me.”
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness," he says, "because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." What he means then is somewhat of this sort. There is no need of fetching a circuit, and of trouble, and the vexation of the works of the Law, for the salvation is by a very short way. For such is faith, it holds salvation in a few short words. "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Now you see what this, "the Lord shall make a short word upon earth," is. And what is indeed wonderful is, that this short word carries with it not salvation only, but also righteousness.
Homily on Romans 16
The historical sense is that, just as I shorten and finish off a sentence, so God will accomplish this with all speed. But in prophecy, the shortened sentence is understood to mean the New Testament, because everything is briefly summarized in it.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
Now he shows how the remnant will be saved, and says that there is no need to labor, to go far, and to exhaust oneself with works of the law. God, he says, who brings to completion and accomplishes the word of faith in a short way throughout all the earth, will do this "in righteousness," that is, in order to justify those who have accepted it. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9). This is the shortened word, that is, the brief sayings of faith.
Commentary on Romans
Second, at for he shall finish his word, he cites the cause of salvation: first, the efficacy of the word of the Gospel, saying: for he shall finish his word and cut it short in equity. Note here a twofold efficacy of the evangelical word. The first is that the word is fulfilling, i.e., perfective: the law made nothing perfect (Heb 7:19); but the Lord says, I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill (Matt 5:17), because he applied the truth to the figures of the law, explained the moral precepts of the law properly, removed occasions for transgressing them and even added counsels of perfection. Thus he said to the young man who had kept all the precepts of the law: one thing is lacking to you. If you would be perfect, go and sell what you possess and give to the poor (Matt 19:21). For this reason he said to his disciples: you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48). The second efficacy is that the word is cut short. This is suitably joined to the first efficacy, because the more perfect a word is the more profound it is and, as a consequence, simpler and briefer. Now the word of the Gospel shortens the words of the law, because it included all the figurative sacrifices of the law in one true sacrifice, in which Christ offered himself as a victim for us (Eph 5:2). Furthermore, it includes all the moral precepts of the law in the two precepts of charity: on these two precepts depend the law and the prophets (Matt 22:40). Hence he says cut short in equity, either because nothing is omitted of the multitude of figures and precepts of the law, but all are included in the brevity of the Gospel; or because nothing remains of them to be observed but what is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason: all your commands are equitable (Ps 118:72). This should be understood so that the sense is: the word of the Gospel will shorten and perfect in equity. Second, when he says because a short word, he gives the reason for this efficacy, saying, for the Lord upon the earth, i.e., when he lives on earth as man: afterwards he was seen upon earth and conversed with men (Bar 3:38), will make a short word. For the word which the Lord himself spoke in the flesh should be more perfect and powerful than the words he spoke through the prophets, as it says in Hebrews: God, who, at sundry time and in diverse manners, spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son (Heb 1:1). Or, in another way: for the Lord, i.e., God the Father, will make a short word, i.e., incarnate, because the Son of God emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. He is called brief, not because anything was subtracted from the fullness or greatness of his divinity, but because he underwent our exile and smallness. This decree is considered, however, in Isaiah, where according to our account it is thus said: for if your people, O Israel, shall be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them shall be converted. The abridged consumption shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, and an abridgment in the midst of all the land (Isa 10:22–23).
Commentary on Romans
And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
καὶ καθὼς προείρηκεν Ἡσαΐας, εἰ μὴ Κύριος Σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡμῖν σπέρμα, ὡς Σόδομα ἂν ἐγενήθημεν καὶ ὡς Γόμορρα ἂν ὡμοιώθημεν.
и҆ ꙗ҆́коже проречѐ и҆са́їа: а҆́ще не бы гдⷭ҇ь саваѡ́ѳъ ѡ҆ста́вилъ на́мъ сѣ́мене, ꙗ҆́коже содо́мъ ᲂу҆́бѡ бы́ли бы́хомъ, и҆ ꙗ҆́коже гомо́ррꙋ ᲂу҆подо́билисѧ бы́хомъ.
What children are these that the Lord has left? No doubt this means what the apostle expounds elsewhere, when he says that it was said to Abraham: “I shall give this land to you and to your seed.” He did not say “to your seeds,” as if to many, but to your seed, as if to one, and that one is Christ.Nor was it an accident that Isaiah called the remnant a seed. It was so called because it was meant to be sown in the earth and bear much fruit. In this way he teaches that Christ must also be sown, that is, buried in the earth, from which he would rise and bear fruit in the whole multitude of the church.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
This seed, which alone remains reserved for the conversion of the human race is Christ and his teaching, as he himself said: “The seed is the Word of God.” Therefore what was long ago promised to us who have been delivered from the burden of the law remains for our redemption, so that by receiving the forgiveness of sins we might not be punished by the law and perish as Sodom did.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and had been made like unto Gomorrha." Here again he shows another thing, that not even those few were saved from their own resources. For they too would have perished, and met with Sodom's fate, that is, they would have had to undergo utter destruction (for they of Sodom were also destroyed root and branch, and left not even the slightest remnant of themselves,) and they too, he means, would have been like these, unless God had used much kindness to them, and had saved them by faith. And this happened also in the case of the visible captivity, the majority having been taken away captive and perished, and some few only being saved.
Homily on Romans 16
Predicted is a good choice of words, because the same thing as he mentioned [in verses 27-28] was written even earlier. God did not allow a few righteous people to perish along with a host of the ungodly. Or this text may mean that this would have happened had Christ, Abraham’s offspring, not been sent to set the people free. The interpretation of the objectors, however, is that it would have happened, unless God had wished to call at least a few from among the Jews.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
This may also be said of Christ, which is how Cyril of Alexandria interpreted it.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
Having said that the remnant will be saved, he now explains what this means, and says that God left us a chosen seed and bread, for the word "left" he used instead of "chose," so that if God had not preserved it, we would have been subjected to destruction, like the Sodomites and Gomorrahites, as those condemned for their sins.
Commentary on Romans
Then, when he says and as Isaiah foretold, he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the apostles, saying: and as Isaiah foretold: unless the Lord of the Sabbaoth, that is, of armies or power, had left us, namely, in his mercy, a seed, i.e., the word of the Gospel: the seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11); or a seed, i.e., Christ; and to your seed which is Christ (Gal 3:16); or a seed, i.e., the apostles: that which shall stand therein shall be a holy seed (Isa 6:13), we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah. For the sin of the Jews was greater than that of the men of Sodom: the iniquity of my people has been greater than the sin of Sodom (Lam 4:6) and your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done (Ezek 16:48). Consequently, it was an act of divine mercy that the Jews were not totally exterminated as were the Sodomites: the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed (Lam 3:22).
Commentary on Romans
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὅτι ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην κατέλαβε δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως,
Что̀ ᲂу҆̀бо рече́мъ, ꙗ҆́кѡ ꙗ҆зы́цы, не гонѧ́щїи пра́вдꙋ, постиго́ша пра́вдꙋ, пра́вдꙋ же, ꙗ҆́же ѿ вѣ́ры:
It is one thing to pursue righteousness and another to have it implanted within. A person who tries by much teaching and reading to obtain something is said to pursue it.… In this sense, the Gentiles, who did not have the tables of the law or the written Word, cannot be said to have pursued righteousness. Nevertheless, they had it in them because the natural law had taught it to them. Therefore, they were close to that righteousness which is of faith, that is, to Christ.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
God is the true and lasting righteousness, if he is acknowledged. For what is more righteous that to know God the Father, from whom all things come, and Christ his Son, through whom all things come? Therefore the first part of righteousness is to acknowledge the Creator, and the next part is to keep what he commands.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
30–31"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness."
Here at last is the clearest answer. For since he had used a proof as well from facts ("for they are not all Israel that are of Israel") as from the case of the forefathers Jacob and Esau, and from the prophets Hosea and Isaiah, he further gives the most decisive answer, after first adding to the perplexity. The points discussed, then, are two; one that the Gentiles attained, and the other that they attained it without following after it, that is, without taking pains about it. And again in the Jews' case also there are two difficulties of the same kind; one that Israel attained not, the other that, though they took pains, they attained not. Whence also his use of words is more emphatical. For he does not say that they had, but that they "attained to righteousness." For what is especially new and unusual is, that they who followed after it attained not, but they which followed not after it attained.
Homily on Romans 16
If this is spoken in the person of the apostle, Paul here once again imagines that the Jews might say: “If it is not true, as we say, that it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, why have the Gentiles found righteousness, which they never sought before, while Israel could not find it, although they have always sought it?” But if the whole of the above thought belongs to the objectors, the apostle is here replying and summarizing the issue by saying: “What shall I say to these objections which are presented to us except that the Gentiles believed as soon as they were called and that the Jews refused to believe?” Righteousness is by faith, and the Jews refused to believe.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
Here he gives the clearest resolution, showing why the Gentiles were accepted and the Israelites were rejected. The Gentiles, he says, holding to the righteousness of faith, were indeed justified.
Commentary on Romans
Then he draws the conclusion from the above, when he says what then shall we say? First, with respect to the gentiles; second, with respect to the Jews, at but Israel. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he draws his conclusion, saying: what then shall we say, in the light of the foregoing? I say it is this, namely, that the gentiles have attained it, i.e., justice, by which they are called sons: and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were justified (1 Cor 6:11). And this, indeed, from God's calling and not from any merits, because he says, the gentiles who did not follow justice. At that time you were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12). Second, he explains what he calls justice that is of faith, i.e., not that which consists in works. For the gentiles were not converted in order to observe the justice of the law, but to be justified through faith in Christ: the justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ upon all who believe (Rom 3:22).
Commentary on Romans
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης εἰς νόμον δικαιοσύνης οὐκ ἔφθασε.
і҆и҃ль же, гонѧ̀ зако́нъ пра́вды, въ зако́нъ пра́вды не пости́же.
Israel pursued the law of righteousness according to the letter but did not fulfill the law. What law? No doubt the law of the Spirit.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Faith is the fulfilling of the law. It is because the Gentiles have faith that they appear to fulfill the whole law. But the Jews, who out of envy did not believe in the Savior, because they claimed the righteousness which is commanded in the law, i.e., the sabbath, circumcision, etc., did not come to the law. In other words, they did not fulfill the law, and those who do not fulfill the law are guilty of it.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
Paul explains once again why the Jews did not find righteousness. Having wrongly gloried in their works they refused to believe and rejected grace on the ground that they were righteous already.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
While the Israelites, ceaselessly seeking the "law of righteousness," that is, the law of works, did not attain to righteousness; because the law, which consisted of works, was not able to justify.
Commentary on Romans
Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion as regards the Jews. And first he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, i.e., the people of the Jews, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. The law of justice is the law of the spirit of life through which men are made just and which the Jewish people did not attain, although they pursued it by observing the shadow of this spiritual law: the law has but a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1). Or by following after the law of justice, i.e., the law of Moses, which is the law of justice, if it is well understood, because it teaches justice. Or it is called the law of justice, because it does not make men truly, but only outwardly, righteous, as long as sins are avoided not from love but from fear of the punishment that the law inflicted: hearken to me, you who pursue that which is just and you who seek the Lord (Isa 51:1); hearken to me, you who know what is just, my people, who have my law in your heart (Isa 51:7).
Commentary on Romans
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
διατί; ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων νόμου· προσέκοψαν γὰρ τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος,
Чесѡ̀ ра́ди; Занѐ не ѿ вѣ́ры, но ѿ дѣ́лъ зако́на: преткнꙋ́шасѧ бо ѡ҆ ка́мень претыка́нїѧ,
And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be "a stumbling-stone," if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God.
An Answer to the Jews
And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men," "a man set in the plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity: "to wit as having been set by the Father "for a stone of offence," and "made a little lower" by Him "than angels," He pronounces Himself "a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People.
An Answer to the Jews
The apostle would never say that they did not fulfill the law which they pursued, which they had and held in their hands. Rather he is explaining why Israel was unable to fulfill the law. It was because they relied on works, not on faith.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
The Jews rejected faith, which as I have said is the fulfillment of the law, and instead claimed that they were justified by works, that is, by the sabbath, the new moons, circumcision and so on. They forgot that Scripture says that “the just shall live by faith.”
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law." This is the clearest answer in the passage, which if he had said immediately upon starting he would not have gained so easy a hearing. But since it is after many perplexities, and preparations, and demonstrations that he sets it down, and after using countless preparatory steps, he has at last made it more intelligible, and also more easily admitted.
For this he says is the cause of their destruction: "Because it was not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law," that they wished to be justified. And he does not say, "by works," but, "as it were by the works of the Law," to show that they had not even this righteousness.
"For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone."
Homily on Romans 16
The man who sees a stone does not stumble, but the blind man dashes himself against it. This is what happened to the Jews, who were blinded by their hatred and crucified Christ because they did not recognize him.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
It is impossible to be justified by the works of the law because it would be necessary to keep the whole law, which is not possible. But anyone who sins (which is inevitable) lies under the judgment of the law.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
Paul calls the Lord Christ a stumbling stone because those who did not accept the new covenant in him stumbled over him and by their unbelief fell from the grace of justification which was given to men through him.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
You ask: why did the Israelites not attain righteousness, even though they earnestly pursued it? Know that they sought justification not in faith, but as if in the works of the law.
Commentary on Romans
Second, he assigns the cause, saying, why is it that although they observed the law, they did not fulfill the law? Because they did not observe the law in the proper way. And this is what he says: because they sought it not by faith, i.e., they sought to be made just not through faith in Christ but as it were of works. For they followed the figure and repudiated the truth: for by the works of the law no human being shall be justified before him (Rom 3:20). Third, he explains the cause assigned: first, he presents the explanation, saying, they have stumbled at the stumbling-stone, i.e., Christ, who is likened to a stumbling-stone; for just as a stone against which a man stumbles is not guarded against because it is small, so the Jews, seeing Christ clothed with our weakness, did not guard against stumbling over him: his look was as it were hidden and despised. Whereupon we esteemed him not (Isa 53:3); before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains (Jer 13:16), i.e., upon Christ and his apostles who are called dark mountains, because their great dignity is hidden.
Commentary on Romans
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
καθὼς γέγραπται· ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.
ꙗ҆́коже є҆́сть пи́сано: сѐ, полага́ю въ сїѡ́нѣ ка́мень претыка́нїѧ и҆ ка́мень собла́зна: и҆ всѧ́къ вѣ́рꙋѧй во́нь не постыди́тсѧ.
It was fitting that the mystery of the passion should be set forth in predictions, for the more incredible it was, the more likely it was to have been a stumbling stone if it had been openly predicted.
An Answer to the Jews 10
Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed "for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence." I omit the rest of the passage.
Against Marcion Book 4
There are many passages of Scripture where Christ is portrayed as a rock or a stone. The prophet Daniel calls him a stone which detaches itself without hands from the mountain, hitting and threatening all the kingdoms and filling the whole earth. This clearly refers to Christ. And in the law the rock from which the waters flowed is called Christ, as the apostle Paul himself testifies. And the apostle Peter says to the Jews: “This is the stone which the builders rejected.”The Jews did not want to compare Christ’s words with his deeds lest perhaps they might recognize that it was not absurd for him to say that he had come down from heaven.… This was the rock of offense as far as the Jews were concerned. The rock was undoubtedly the human flesh of the Savior. It detached itself without hands, because it was made of a virgin by the Holy Spirit without the participation of a male.
Commentary on Paul’s Epistles
"As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed." You see again how it is from faith that the boldness comes, and the gift is universal; since it is not of the Jews only that this is said, but also of the whole human race. For every one, he would say, whether Jew, or Grecian, or Scythian, or Thracian, or whatsoever else he may be, will, if he believes, enjoy the privilege of great boldness.
But the wonder in the Prophet is that he foretells not only that they should believe, but also that they should not believe. For to stumble is to disbelieve. As in the former passage he points out them that perish and them that are saved, where he says, "If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved." And, "If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we should have been as Sodoma." And, "He hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles;" so here too he implies that some will believe, and some will stumble. But stumbling comes of not taking heed, of gaping after other things. Since then they did give heed to the Law, they stumbled on the stone, "And a stone of stumbling and rock of offence" he calls it from the character and end of those that believe not.
Homily on Romans 16
It was foretold that Christ would be the stumbling stone and the rock of offense precisely because many take offense at his birth and death. … Nobody who believes, not just the Jew, will be put to shame by former sins.
Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans
People stumble when they stop paying attention to where they are going and look elsewhere. This is what happened to the Jews. Because they were so busy adding extras to the law, they failed to notice the stone which the prophets predicted.
Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans
He stumbles who gazes at something extraneous and does not pay attention to what is under his feet. So too the Jews, gazing at the law, stumbled over Christ, that is, they did not believe. And Christ is called a stumbling stone and a rock of offense in relation to the end and disposition of those who did not believe. For in Himself He is laid as a foundation and support; because it is said: "he who believes in Him shall not be put to shame" (Isa. 28:16), whether Gentile or Jew, so that faith, not works, accomplishes and justifies all things.
Commentary on Romans
Second, he cites an authority for this, saying: as it is written, namely, in Isaiah. Here the Apostle gathers together the words of Isaiah found in various places. For it says in Isaiah: behold, I will lay a stone in the foundations of Zion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation (Isa 28:16). From this he takes the first part of his quotation: behold, I lay in Zion a stone, i.e., as a foundation, by which is meant that by divine command Christ was established as the foundation of the Church: for no other foundation can anyone lay that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11). Again it says in Isaiah: he shall be for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel (Isa 8:14). He uses this in the middle of the quotation where he says: a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall. Here the stumbling refers to their ignorance, because it says in 1 Corinthians: if they had known this, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8); but the falling refers to their unbelief by reason of which they persecuted Christ and his apostles: we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews (1 Cor 1:23); behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel (Luke 2:34). The end of the quotation is taken from Isaiah: he who believes, let him not hasten (Isa 28:16). In place of this he says, and whosoever believes in him shall not be confounded, namely, because he will receive a reward from him: you who fears the Lord, hope in him: and your reward shall not be made void (Sir 2:8). The Apostle takes these words according to the Septuagint. Its sense pertains to what is in our text: he who believes, let him not hasten, for he seems to hasten, who considers himself deceived, because he does not quickly get what he hoped.
Commentary on Romans
ISAY the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι, συμμαρτυρούσης μοι τῆς συνειδήσεώς μου ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ,
[Заⷱ҇ 100] И҆́стинꙋ глаго́лю ѡ҆ хрⷭ҇тѣ̀, не лгꙋ̀, послꙋшествꙋ́ющей мѝ со́вѣсти мое́й дх҃омъ ст҃ы́мъ,