Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans — Homily 16

Source: Translated by J. Walker, J. Sheppard and H. Browne, and revised by George B. Stevens. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series , Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff. ( Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889. ) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm>.

Opening

Romans 9:1

Rom. IX. 1

I am speaking the truth in Christ; I am not lying. My conscience also bears witness to me in the Holy Spirit.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.

Did I not seem yesterday to have spoken of some great and extraordinary things about Paul's love for Christ? And they were indeed great—too great for any words to express. Yet what you have heard today is as far above those things as those things were above ours. And I did not think they could be exceeded, but when I came to what has been read today, it appeared far more glorious than all of the former. And he was aware of this himself, as he shows by his introduction. For when he is about to enter upon greater things than those, and therefore likely to be disbelieved by most people, he first uses a strong oath about the matter he is going to speak of. Many people are in the habit of doing this when they are going to say something that is not believed by most people, and about which they feel the utmost certainty in their own minds. Hence he says, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not," and "my conscience bears witness."

Did I not seem yesterday to you to have spoken some great and exorbitant things of Paul's love toward Christ? And great indeed they were, too great for any words to express. Yet what you have heard today are as far above those things, as those things were above ours. And yet I did not think they could be exceeded, still when I came to what has been read today it did appear far more glorious than the whole of the former. And that he was aware of this himself he shows by his exordium. For as on the point of entering upon greater things than those, and therefore liable to be disbelieved by the generality, he first uses a strong asseveration about the matter he is going to speak of; which many are in the habit of doing when they are going to say somewhat which is not believed by the generality, and about which they feel the utmost certainty in their own minds. Hence he says, I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, and my conscience bears witness,

Verses 2-3. "That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ."

Ver. 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 are you saying, Paul? You said that neither kingdom nor hell, nor things visible or unseen, nor another world as great as this, could separate you from Christ, your beloved. Now do you wish to be accursed from Him? What has happened? Have you changed? Have you abandoned that love? No, he replies—don't worry. I have actually intensified it. Then how is it that you want to be accursed and seek a separation so complete that no greater distance is possible? Because I love Him so much, he might say. How can that be? This seems like a riddle. Let us first understand what the curse is, and then we can question him on these points and grasp this extraordinary and unspeakable love. What then is the curse? Listen to his own words: "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (1 Corinthians 16:22). That is, let him be set apart from all, removed from all. Just as no one would dare to touch or even approach a thing dedicated (anathema) that is set apart for God, so too with a person who is cut off from the Church—by removing him as far as possible, Paul calls him by this name (anathema) in the opposite sense, warning everyone with great seriousness to keep away from him and flee from him. No one ventures near a thing set apart out of respect for it, but everyone separates themselves from a person cut off for the very opposite reason. The separation is the same in both cases, and both are equally removed from the general community. However, the manner of separation is not the same but opposite. People keep away from one because it is dedicated to God; they keep away from the other because he is estranged from God and cut off from the Church. This is what Paul means when he says, "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ." He doesn't just say he could be willing—using a stronger term, he says he could wish (or pray, euchomen) for it. If what he says troubles you in your weakness, consider the actual situation—not only that he wished to be separated, but also the reason why he wished it—and then you will see the greatness of his love. He even circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), but we don't focus on what was done; we look at the intention and the cause, and this makes us admire him even more. He not only circumcised someone but also shaved himself and sacrificed (Acts 18:18; 21:24), yet we don't call him a Jew because of this. On the contrary, on this very basis we recognize him as completely free from Judaism and clear of it, a genuine worshiper of Christ. Just as when you see him circumcising and sacrificing, you don't condemn him as Judaizing but have the best reason to honor him as completely foreign to Judaism, so when you see him desiring to be accursed, don't be troubled. Instead, praise him most highly when you understand the reason why he wishes this. If we don't carefully examine the causes, we will call Elijah a killer and Abraham not only a killer but a murderer of his son. We will accuse Phinehas and Peter of murder as well. This applies not only to the saints but also to the God of the universe—anyone who doesn't follow this rule will suspect improper things. To prevent this from happening in all such cases, let us gather together the cause, the intention, the time, and everything that supports what was done, and investigate the actions this way. We must do this now with this blessed soul. What is the cause? It is Jesus Himself, the One so beloved. Yet Paul doesn't say "for Him," because what he says is, "I would wish that I were accursed from Him for my brethren." This comes from his humility. He doesn't want to make himself conspicuous, as if he were saying something great and doing Christ a favor in this. That's why he said "my kinsmen"—to conceal his noble purpose (pleonektema). To see that he wished it all for Christ's sake, just listen to what comes next. After speaking of kinsmen, he continues,

What do you say, O Paul? From Christ, your beloved One, from Whom neither kingdom nor hell, nor things visible nor intelligible, nor another world as great, would separate you, is it from Him that you would now be accursed? What has happened? Have you changed, have you given over that love? No, he replies, fear not. Rather I have even made it more intense. How then is it that you would 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. anathema, 1 Corinthians 16:22 That is, let him be set apart from all, removed from all. For as in the case of a thing dedicated ( ἀ νάθημα), 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 ( ἀ νάθεμα) in a contrary sense, thus with much fear denouncing to all men to keep apart from him, and to spring away from him. For the thing set apart, no one, from respect of it, ventures to come near to. But from him who is cut off, all men separate themselves from a very opposite feeling. And so the separation is the same, and both the one and the other are equally removed from the generality. Still, the mode of separation is not the same, but in this case it is the opposite to what it is in that. For from the one they keep back as being dedicated to God; from the other as being estranged from God, and broken off from the Church. This then is what Paul means when he says, I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ. And he does not say merely that I could be willing, but using a stronger term, he says even, I could wish (or pray ηὐχόμην). But if what he says trouble you in your ( ἀ σθενέστερον) feebleness, consider the real state of the case, not only that he wished to be separated, but also the cause for which he wished it, and then you will see the greatness of his love. For he even circumcised Timothy, Acts 16:3, and we pay no attention to what was done, but to the intention of it, and the cause of it, and hence we wonder at him the more. And he not only circumcised a person, but he even shaved himself and sacrificed Acts 18:18; Acts 21:24, and yet surely we do not therefore assert him to be a Jew, but upon this very score to be perfectly free from Judaizing, and clear of it, and a genuine worshipper of Christ. As then when you see him circumcising and sacrificing, you do not therefore condemn him as Judaizing, but upon this very score have the best reason for crowning him as quite an alien to Judaism; thus when you see him to have become desirous of being accursed, do not therefore be troubled, but upon this very ground give him the loudest praise, when you know the cause why he wishes this. For if we do not look narrowly into the causes, we shall call Elijah a manslayer, and Abraham not a manslayer only, but a murderer of his son. And Phinees and Peter we shall implead for murder likewise. Nor is it in the case of the saints alone, but also of the God of the universe, that he who does not keep to this rule, will be suspecting sundry unbecoming things. Now to prevent this happening in all cases of the kind, let us bring together both the cause, and the intention, and the time, and all that makes in behalf of what is so done, and in this way let us investigate the actions. And this we must do now also in the case of this blessed soul. Now what is the cause? It is Jesus Himself Who is so beloved. And yet he does not say for Him; for what he says is, I would wish that I were accursed from Him for my brethren. And this comes of his humbleness of mind. For he has no wish to make himself conspicuous, as if he were saying something great, and doing Christ a favor in this. Wherefore also he said my kinsmen, that he may conceal his high aim ( πλεονέκτημα). Since to see that he wished it all for Christ's sake, just hear what comes next. After speaking of kinsmen then, he proceeds,

To whom belongs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Ver. 4, 5. To whom pertains 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 forever. Amen.

And what does this mean? someone asks. For if Paul was willing to become accursed for the sake of bringing others to faith, he should have also wished for this on behalf of the Gentiles. But if he wishes it only on behalf of the Jews, it is proof that he did not wish it for Christ's sake, but because of his own kinship with them. Yet if he had prayed only for the Gentiles, this would not have been equally clear. But since it is for the Jews only, it is clear proof that he is so earnest only for Christ's glory. And I know that what I am saying will seem paradoxical to you. Still, if you do not make a disturbance, I will soon try to make it clear. For what he has said he has not said plainly; but since everyone was talking and accusing God—saying that after being counted worthy of the name of sons, and receiving the Law, and knowing Him beyond all people, and enjoying such great glory, and serving Him beyond the whole world, and receiving the promises, and being descended from fathers who were His friends, and what was the greatest thing of all, having been the ancestors 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 brought in people from the Gentiles who had never known Him. Now since they said all this and blasphemed God, Paul, hearing it and being cut to the heart and grieved for God's glory's sake, wished that he were accursed, if it were possible, so that they might be saved and this blasphemy be stopped, and God might not seem to have deceived the descendants of those to whom He promised the gifts. And that you may see that it was in sorrow for this—that the promise of God might not seem to fall to the ground, which said to Abraham, I will give this land to you and to your seed—that he uttered this wish, he proceeds,

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 if he wishes it in the Jews' behalf only, it is a proof that he did not wish it for Christ's sake, but for his own relationship to them. 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. And I am aware that what I am saying will seem a paradox to you. Still if you do not make a disturbance, I will presently endeavor to make it clear. For what he has said he has not said nakedly; but since 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. And that you may see that it was in sorrow for this, that the promise of God might not seem to fall to the ground, which said to Abraham, I will give this land to you and to your seed, that he uttered this wish, he proceeds,

Verse 6. This does not mean that God's word has failed.

Ver. 6. Not as though the word of God had taken none effect.

To show that he had the courage (as Mark and four manuscripts say, "wished") to endure all these things for the word of God, that is, the promise made to Abraham. For just 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'" Deuteronomy 9:28; "stay Your wrath"), so also does Paul. "So that they may not say" (he means) "that the promise of God has fallen to the ground, and He has disappointed us of what He pledged to us, and this word has not resulted in action," 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, and therefore neither did anyone 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. Do you see that if he had expressed it for the Gentiles, he would not have been shown to be doing this so purely for Christ's glory? But since he was willing to become accursed on behalf of the Jews, then it was most clearly shown that it was for Christ's sake only that he desired this. And for this reason he says,

To show that he had courage (Mar. and 4 manuscripts wished) 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 Deuteronomy 9:28; stay Your 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. Do you see, that if he had expressed it for the Gentiles, he would not have been shown to be doing this so purely for Christ's glory? But since he was willing to become accursed in the Jews' behalf, then it was most evidenced that it was for Christ's sake only that he desired this. And for this cause he says,

To them belongs the adoption, the glory, the service of God, and the promises.

To whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the service of God, and the promises.

For the Law that speaks of Christ comes from them, and all the covenants made with them, and He Himself came from them, and the Fathers who received the promises were all from them. Yet still the opposite has happened, and they have fallen away from all their good things. This is why, he means, I am so distressed, and if it were possible to be separated from the company of Christ and to be made an outsider—not from love of Him (far from it, for he was doing all this precisely out of love)—but from all that enjoyment and glory, I would accept that fate, if only my Master would not be blasphemed and would not have to hear people saying that it has all been just for show: He makes promises to one people and gives to another. He was born from one race but saved another. He made promises to the ancestors of the Jews, yet He has abandoned their descendants and given people who never knew Him at all their good things. They labored in practicing the Law and reading the Prophets, while people who only yesterday came from pagan altars and images have been placed above them. What kind of divine plan is this? Now so that these things may not be said of my Master—he means—even if they are said unjustly, I would willingly lose even the kingdom and that inexpressible glory, and I would undergo any sufferings, considering it the greatest possible comfort no longer to hear Him whom I so long for being blasphemed. But if you still will not accept this explanation, just consider that many fathers at many times have taken on this much for their children and have chosen to be separated from them, and have preferred to see them honored, considering their honor dearer than their company. But since we fall so far short of this kind of love, we cannot even form an idea of what is meant here. For there are some who are so completely unworthy even to hear Paul's name, and who stand at such a distance from his intensity, that they imagine he is speaking of physical death. These people, I would say, know as little about Paul as the blind know about the sun's rays, or even much less. For he who died daily and faced dangers as thick as a snowstorm, and then said, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine?"—and still unsatisfied with what he had said, and after going above the heaven and the heaven of heavens, and running through the Angels and Archangels and all the higher orders of beings, and taking in at once things present, things to come, things visible, things intelligible, things grievous, and things good that were on either side, and leaving nothing out at all, yet not even then satisfied, but even imagining another creation that does not exist—how could he, in order to say something great after all those things, mention physical death? It is not so, surely it is not! Such a notion is like worms nesting in their dunghill. For had he said this, in what sense would he be wishing himself accursed from Christ? For death of that sort would have joined him more closely with Christ's company and made him enjoy that glory all the more. Yet there are some who dare to say things different from these, even more ridiculous. It was not death that he wished for, they say, but to be a treasure, a thing set apart, for Christ. And who even among the most worthless and lazy would not wish for this? And in what way would this have helped his kinsmen? Let us then leave these fables and trifles—for it is no more worthwhile to reply to these things than to children babbling at play—and let us go back again to the words themselves, reveling in this very ocean of love and fearlessly swimming in it in every direction, and reflecting upon the inexpressible flame of love—or rather, say what one may, one will say nothing worthy of the subject. For there is no ocean so wide, no flame so intense, as this. And no language can set it forth as it deserves, but he alone knew it who in truth possessed it. And now let me bring the words themselves before you again.

For the Law, he means, which speaks of Christ, comes from thence, and all the covenants made with them, and Himself came from them, and the Fathers who received the promises were all from them. Yet still the opposite has resulted, and they have fallen from all their good things. Hence, he means, I am vexed, and if it were possible to be separated from the company about Christ, and to be made an alien, not from the love of Him (that be far from him; for even all this he was doing through love), but from all that enjoyment and glory, I would accept that lot, provided my Master were not to be blasphemed, that He might not have to hear some saying, that it has been all for stage-effect; He promises to one, and gives to another. He was sprung from one race, He saved another. It was to the forefathers of the Jews that He made the promises, and yet He has deserted their descendants, and put men, who never at any time knew Him, into their good things. They labored in the practice of the Law, and reading the Prophets, while men who have come but yesterday from heathen altars and images have been set up above them. What foresight is there in all this? Now that these things may not be said of my Master, he means, even if they are said unjustly, I would willingly lose even the kingdom and that glory unutterable, and any sufferings would I undergo, as considering it the greatest consolation possible no longer to hear Him Whom I so long for, so blasphemed. But if you be still against allowing this explanation, just reflect that many fathers have at many times taken up with thus much for their children, and have chosen to be separated from them, and rather to see them in honor, considering their honor dearer to them than their company. But since we are so short of love like this (Bacon, N. O. Aph. lib. 2, §7), we cannot even form an idea of what is here meant. For there be some that are so wholly unworthy even to hear the name of Paul, and that stand at such an interval and distance from that vehemency of his, as to fancy that he says this of temporal death. Who I should say were as ignorant of Paul, as the blind of the sun's rays, or even much more so. For he that died daily, and set before him dangers thick as a snow-storm, and then said, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine? and still unsatisfied with what he had said, and after going above the heaven and the heaven of heavens, and running through the Angels and Archangels, and all the higher orders of beings, and taking in at once things present, things to come, things visible, things intelligible, things grievous, and things good, that were on either part, and leaving nothing out at all, yet not even thus satiated, but even bodying forth another non-existing creation, how should he, by way of saying some great thing after all those things, make mention of a temporal death? It is not so, surely it is not! But such a notion is that of worms nestling in their dunghill. For had he said this, in what sense would he be wishing himself accursed from Christ? For death Philippians 1:23 of that sort would have joined him more closely with the band of Christ, and made him enjoy that glory the more. Yet some there are who venture to say things different from these, even more ridiculous. It was not then, they say, death that he wished to have, but to be a treasure, a thing set apart, of Christ's. And who even of the most worthless and indolent that would not wish for this? And in what way was this likely to be in his kinsmen's behalf? Let us then leave these fables and trifles (for it is no more worth while making a reply to these things than to children babbling at play), and let us go back again to the words themselves, luxuriating in this very ocean of love, and fearlessly swimming there in every direction, and reflecting upon the unspeakable flame of love — or rather say what one may, one shall say nothing worthy the subject. For there is no ocean so wide, no flame so intense, as this. And no language can set it forth as it deserves, but he alone knew it who in good earnest gained it. And now let me bring the words themselves before you again.

For I could wish that I myself were accursed. What does the "I myself" mean? It means I who have been a teacher of all, who have gathered together countless good deeds, who am waiting for countless crowns, who desired Him so much that I valued His love above all things, who all my days am burning for Him, and hold all things of secondary importance to the love of Him. For being loved by Christ was not the only thing he cared for, but loving Him exceedingly also. And this last he cared most for. So it was that he looked to this only and took all things light-heartedly. For he kept one aim in view in all circumstances: the fulfilling of this excellent love. And this he wishes for. But since things were not to take this course, nor was he to become accursed, he next attempts to go into a defense against the charges, and so to bring what was being talked about by everyone before them in order to overthrow it. And before he openly enters into his defense against these charges, he first lays down some seeds of it beforehand. For when he says "to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises," he is saying that God willed them to be saved, and this He showed by His former dealings, and by Christ's having sprung from them, and by what He promised to the Fathers. But they out of their own incurable temperament thrust the benefit away from them. And this is also the reason for his setting down such things as set forth God's gift, not such as were praises upon them. For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud and says, "Who is blessed forever. Amen."

For I could wish that I myself were accursed. What does the I myself mean? It means I that have been a teacher 1 Corinthians 9:27 of all, that have gathered together countless good deeds, that am waiting for countless crowns, that desired Him so much, as to value His love above all things, who all my days am burning for Him, and hold all things Philippians 3:8 of second importance to the love of Him. For even being loved by Christ was not the only thing he cared for, but loving Him exceedingly also. And this last he cared most for ( τούτου μάλιστα ἦν). So it was that he looked to this only, and took all things light-heartedly. For he kept one aim in view in all circumstances, the fulfilling of this excellent love. And this he wishes for. But since things were not to take this course, nor he to become accursed, he next attempts to go into a defense against the charges, and so to bring what was bruited abroad by all before them as to overthrow it. And before he openly enters into his defense against these, he first lays down some seeds of it beforehand. For when he says, to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises, he does but say that God willed them indeed to be saved, and this he showed by His former dealings, and by Christ's having sprung from them, and by what He promised to the Fathers. But they out of their own untreatable temper thrust the benefit away from them. And this is also the reason of his setting down such things as set forth God's gift, not such as were encomiums upon them. For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, Who is blessed forever. Amen.

So he offers thanksgiving to the Only-Begotten of God on behalf of all people. What does it matter, he says, if others blaspheme? We who know His mysteries, His unspeakable Wisdom, and His great Providence over us know well that He is not to be blasphemed but to be glorified, that He is worthy. Yet not satisfied with being aware of this himself, he next tries to use arguments and to speak more sharply against them. And he does not direct his words at them without first removing a suspicion they had. So that he would not seem to be addressing them as enemies, later on he says, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved" (Romans 10:1). And here, along with other remarks, he arranges things so as not to seem to be saying what he is about to say out of hostility toward them. For this reason he does not refuse to call them kinsmen and brothers. For even if it was for Christ's sake that he said what he did, still he is drawing their mind to himself also, and prepares the way for what he has to say, and clears himself of all suspicion owing to what had to be said against them, and then he finally goes into the subject most of them were waiting for. For many, as I have already said, wanted to know what was the reason why those who had received the promise fell short of it, while those who had not even heard of it were saved before them. Therefore, to clear up this difficulty, he brings forward the answer before the objection. For to prevent anyone from saying, "What? Are you more concerned for God's glory than God is for His own? And does He need your help so that His word may not fall to the ground?" In reply to these things he says, "I spoke this not as if God's Word had fallen to the ground, but to show my love for Christ." For since things have turned out this way, we are in no need of words on God's behalf or of showing that His promise stood firm. God said to Abraham, "To you and to your seed will I give the land," and "In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 12:7). Let us see then, he says, what sort of seed this is. For not all who are from him are his seed. Therefore he says, "For they are not all Israel that are of Israel."

So himself offering up thanksgiving for all men unto the Only-Begotten of God. What, he says, if others do blaspheme? Still we who know His mysteries, and His unspeakable Wisdom, and great Providence over us, know well that it is not to be blasphemed, but to be glorified, that He is worthy. Still not satisfied with being himself conscious of it, he endeavors next to use arguments, and to use a sharper way of speech against them. And he does not direct his aim at them, without first divesting them of a suspicion they had. Lest then he should seem to be addressing them as enemies, further on he says Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Romans 10:1 And here, along with other remarks, he so ordered things, as not to seem to be saying what he was going to say out of enmity against them. Hence he does not decline calling them even kinsmen and brothers. For even if it was for Christ's sake that he said what he did, still he is for drawing ( ἐ πισπἅται) their mind to him also, and paves his way to what he has to say, and quits himself of all suspicion owing to what had to be said against them, and then he at last goes into the subject most of them were looking for. For many, as I have already stated, wanted to know what was the reason why they who had received the promise fell short of it, while those who had even never heard of it were saved before them. Therefore, to clear up this difficulty, he brings forward the answer before the objection. For to prevent any from saying, What? Are you more thoughtful for God's glory than God is for His own? And does He need your aid that His word may not fall to the ground? In reply to these things he says, I spoke this not as if God's Word had fallen to the ground, but to show my love for Christ. For as things have had this issue, we are in no want of words in God's behalf, or of showing that stand His promise did. God said to Abraham, To you and to your seed will I give the land. And, In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:7 Let us see then, he says, of what sort this seed is. For it is not all that are from him that are his seed. Whence he says, For they are not all Israel that are of (or from) Israel.

Verse 7. Nor are they all children simply because they are Abraham's descendants.

Ver. 7. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.

When you come to understand what kind of seed Abraham has, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and you will know that the word has not failed. What kind of seed is it, then? This is not my own claim, he means, but the Old Testament itself explains itself by saying the following: "In Isaac shall your seed be called" (Genesis 21:12). What does "in Isaac" mean? Explain.

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 has 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 your seed be called. Genesis 21:12 What is, In Isaac? Explain.

That is, those who are children by physical descent are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Ver. 8. 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.

Notice the judgment and depth of Paul's mind. For in his interpretation, he does not say "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of Abraham," but rather "the children of God"—thus weaving together the earlier points with the present ones, and showing that even Isaac was not merely Abraham's son. What he means is something like this: as many as have been born in the same way Isaac was, they are sons of God and of the seed of Abraham. This is why he said, "in Isaac shall your seed be called." One may learn from this that those who are born in the same manner as Isaac—these are in the truest sense Abraham's children. In what way, then, was Isaac born? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of the promise. What, then, is meant by the power of the promise?

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 your 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. What is meant then by the power of the promise?

At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.

Ver. 9. At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

This promise and word of God fashioned Isaac and brought him into being. What if a womb was its instrument and a woman's body was involved? It was not the power of the body but the might of the promise that brought forth the child. In the same way, we too are brought into being by the words of God. In the pool of water, it is the words of God that generate and shape us. We are brought into being by being baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. This birth is not of nature but of the promise of God. Just as God first foretold Isaac's birth and then accomplished it, so He announced our birth many ages ago through all the Prophets and afterward brought it to pass. You know how great He has declared it to be, and how, having promised a great thing, He provided it with abundant ease! If the Jews were to say that the words "In Isaac shall your seed be called" mean that those born of Isaac should be counted as his seed, then the Edomites and all those peoples ought also to be called his sons, since their forefather Esau was Isaac's son. But far from being called sons, they are the greatest possible strangers. You see then that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of baptism from above was sketched out beforehand. If you speak to me of the womb, I speak to you in return of the water. But as in this case all is of the Spirit, so in the other all was of promise. For the womb was more chilled than any water because of barrenness and old age. Let us then gain accurate knowledge of our own nobility and display a life worthy of it. For in it there is nothing fleshly or earthy, so neither should there be in us. It was neither sleep nor the will of the flesh nor embraces nor the madness of desire, but God's love toward man that accomplished the whole. And as in that case it happened when the age was past hope, so in this also it was when the old age of sins had come over us that Isaac suddenly sprang up in youth, and we all became the children of God and the seed of Abraham.

This promise then and word of God it was that fashioned Isaac, and begot 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 begot 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. John 3:3; Ephesians 5:26; James 1:18; 1 Peter 3:21 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! Hosea 2:1, etc But if the Jews were to say, that the words, In Isaac shall your seed be called, mean this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens. You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of baptism from above was sketched out beforehand. And if you tell me of the womb, I in return have to tell you of the water. But as in this case all is of the Spirit, so in the other all was of promise. For the womb was more chilled than any water owing to barrenness and to old age. Let us then gain accurate knowledge of our own nobility, and display a life worthy of it. For in it is nothing fleshly or earthy: hence neither let there be in us. For it was neither sleep, nor the will of the flesh John 1:13, nor embraces, nor the madness of desire, but God's love toward man, which wrought the whole. Titus 3:5 And as in that case it was when the age was past hope, so in this also it was when the old age of sins had come over us, that Isaac suddenly sprang up in youth, and we all became the children of God, and the seed of Abraham. Isaiah 40:31

And not only this, but also when Rebecca had conceived by one man, our father Isaac.

Ver. 10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac.

The subject under discussion was important, so Paul turns to several arguments and tries in every way to solve the difficulty. If it was both strange and new for the Jews to be cast out after receiving such great promises, it is even stranger that we should enter into their blessings when we never expected anything of the kind. The situation is like this: imagine a king's son who had been promised he would succeed to his father's power, but instead he is reduced to the level of disreputable men. In his place, a condemned man loaded with countless evils is taken out of prison and given the power that properly belonged to the other. What can you say? That the son is unworthy? Well, this other man is also unworthy, and much more so. Therefore either both should have been punished together, or both should have been honored together. Something like this—or something far stranger—happened to the Jews and the Gentiles. Now Paul has already shown above that all were unworthy, where he says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). But the strange thing is that when all were unworthy, the Gentiles alone were saved. Besides this, there is another difficulty someone might raise, he says. If God never intended to fulfill the promises to them, why make them at all? People who do not know the future and are often deceived do sometimes promise their gifts even to the undeserving. But God, who knows in advance both future and present things and has clear knowledge that they will make themselves unworthy of the promises and therefore will not receive any of the things promised—why would He make promises at all? How does Paul address all this? By showing who the Israel is to whom God made the promise. Once this is shown, it is also demonstrated that all the promises were fulfilled. To point this out he said, "For they are not all Israel that are of Israel." This is why he does not use the name Jacob, but the name Israel, which was a sign of that righteous man's virtue, of a gift from above, and of having seen God (Genesis 32:28). Yet, he says, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Now if all have sinned, how do some come to be saved and some to perish? It is because not all were willing to come to Him, since for His part all were saved, for all were called. However, Paul does not address this yet, but tackles it from an advantageous position and from other examples, by bringing before them another question, and as before meets a great difficulty with another difficulty. When he was discussing how through Christ's justification all the rest enjoyed that righteousness, he brought in Adam's case, saying, "For if by one man's offense death reigned, much more they which receive abundance of grace shall reign in life" (Romans 5:17). He does not clear up Adam's case itself, but from it he clarifies his own point and shows that it was more reasonable that the One who died on their behalf should have power over them at His will. For most people do not find it entirely reasonable that when one man sinned, all should be punished. But that when One did right, all should be justified is both more reasonable and more fitting for God. Yet he still has not solved the difficulty he raised. For the more obscure that point remained, the more the Jew was silenced. And the difficulty of that position passed over to the other, and this became clearer from it. So in this passage too, he meets the questions raised by bringing up other difficulties, since he was contending against Jews. Therefore he takes no pains to solve the examples he has brought before us, for he was not answerable for them in the fight against the Jews. But from them he makes his own subject clearer throughout. Why are you surprised, he means, that some of the Jews were saved and some were not saved at this time? In the patriarch's times long ago, one can see this happening. Why was Isaac alone called the seed, when Abraham was also the father of Ishmael and several others? But Ishmael was born of a mother who was a slave. And what does this have to do with his father? Still, I will not be argumentative. Let this son be set aside on account of his mother. What shall we say of those descended from Keturah? Were they not free, and from a mother who was free? How did they not receive the same preference as Isaac? And why do I speak of these? Rebecca was Isaac's only wife, and bearing two children she bore them both to Isaac. Still those born this way, though of the same father and the same mother, and the fruit of the same pregnancy, both of one father and one mother and twins besides, yet did not enjoy the same lot. And here you have no mother's slavery to account for it, as in Ishmael's case, nor can you say that one was born of this womb and the other of a different one, as in the case of Keturah and Sarah, since in this case they even had the same hour in common for their birth. This is why Paul, in order to give a clearer example, says that this happened not only in Isaac's case, 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. And the case was the same as if a king's son, who had promises made him that he should succeed to the power he had, were to be cast into the level of disreputable men, and in his place a condemned man, and one laden with evils unnumbered, after being taken out of prison, were to come into the power, which properly was the other's. For he means, what have you to say? That the son is unworthy? Well, but so is this man unworthy, and much more so. Hence he ought either to have been punished along with the former, or to have been honored along with him. Now it was something of this sort which befell the Jews and the Gentiles, or something far more strange than this. Now that all were unworthy, he has shown above, where he says, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 But the new thing is, that when all were unworthy, the Gentiles were saved alone. And beside this there is another difficulty that some one may start, he says. If God had no intention of fulfilling the promises to them, why make them at all? For men who know not the future, and are many times deceived, do promise even the undeserving that they shall have their largesses. But He Who knows beforehand things to come as well as things present, and has a clear knowledge that they will make themselves undeserving of the promises, and therefore will not receive any of the things specified — why should He promise at all? Now what is Paul's way of meeting all this? It is by showing what the Israel is to whom He made the promise. For when this has been shown, there is at the same time demonstrated the fact that the promises were all fulfilled. And to point this out he said, For they are not all Israel that are of Israel. And this is why he does not use the name of Jacob, but that of Israel, which was a sign of the virtue of that just man, and of a gift from above, and of having seen God. Genesis 32:28 Yet, all, he says, have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 Now if all have sinned, how come some to be saved, and some to perish? It is because all were not minded to come to Him, since for His part all were saved, for all were called. However, he does not set this down yet awhile, but meets it from an advantageous position, and from other examples, by bringing before them another question, and as in the former case meets a difficulty very great, by another difficulty. For when he was discussing how by Christ being justified all the rest enjoyed that righteousness, he brought in Adam's case, saying, For if by one man's offense death reigned, much more they which receive abundance of grace shall reign in life. Romans 5:17. And the case of Adam, indeed, he does not clear up, but from it he clears up His (or his own), and shows that it was more reasonable that He Who died in their behalf should have power over them at His will. For that when one had sinned all should be punished, does not seem to be so very reasonable to most men. But that when One had done aright all should be justified, is at once more reasonable and more suited to God. Yet still he has not solved the difficulty he raised. For the more obscure that point remained, the more the Jew was put to silence. And the difficulty of his position passed over to the other, and this become clearer from it (Mar. and 4 manuscripts than that). So in this passage also, it is by raising other difficulties that he meets the questions raised, inasmuch as it was against Jews that he was contending. Hence he takes no pains to solve the examples which he has brought before us. For he was not answerable for them as in the fight against the Jews. But from them he makes his own subject throughout clearer. Why do you feel surprised, he means, that some of the Jews were saved, and some not saved at this time? Why of old, in the patriarch's times, one may see this happening. For why was Isaac only called the seed, and yet he was the father of Ishmael also, and of several others. But he was of a mother that was a slave. And what has this to do with his father? Still I will not be captious. Let this son be set aside on his mother's account. What are we to say of those sprung from Keturah? Were they not free, and from a mother that was free? How came they not to be honored with the same preference as Isaac? And why do I speak of these? For Rebecca was even Isaac's only wife, and bearing two children she bore them both to Isaac; still those so born, though of the same father, and the same mother, and the fruit of the same labor, being both of one father and one mother, and twins besides, yet did not enjoy the same lot. And yet here you have no mother's slavery to account for it, as in Ishmael's case, nor can you say that one was begotten of this womb and the other of a different one, as in the case of Keturah and Sarah, since in this case they had the same hour in common to them for their birth. This was why Paul then, in order to give a clearer example, says that this happened not in Isaac's case only, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac.

Before the children were yet born and had not done anything good or evil, so that God's purpose according to election might stand firm—not based on works but on him who calls—it was said to her, "The elder shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Ver. 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 calls, it was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What was the reason, then, that one was loved and the other hated? Why did one serve while the other was served? It was because one was wicked and the other good. And yet before the children were even born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not yet born, God said, "the elder shall serve the younger." What was God's purpose in saying this? Because He does not wait, as humans do, to see from the outcome of their actions who is good and who is not, but even before these actions He knows who is wicked and who is not. And this took place in the case of the Israelites as well, in an even more remarkable way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the case of the Israelites, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshiped the calf. Yet even so, some had mercy shown to them, and others did not.

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 does not wait, as man does, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knows 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.

Ver. 15. For I will have mercy, He says, on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion. Exodus 33:19

This can also be seen in the case of those who are punished. What would you say about Pharaoh, who was punished and had to pay such a heavy penalty? You say he was hardened and disobedient. But was he alone like this, and no one else? Why then was he so severely punished? Why did God call "a people" those who were no people in the case of the Jews, or again, why not count all worthy of equal honor? For Scripture says, "Though they be as the sand of the sea, yet shall a remnant be saved." And why only a remnant? You see what difficulty he has filled the subject with, and with good reason. For when you have the power to throw your opponent into confusion, do not immediately bring forward the answer, because if he is found to be responsible for the same ignorance, why take unnecessary risks upon yourself? Why make him bolder by drawing it all upon yourself? Now tell me, you Jew who have so many perplexing questions and are unable to answer any of them, why do you annoy us on account of the call of the Gentiles? I, however, have a good reason to give you why the Gentiles were justified and you were cast out. And what is the reason? It is that they are of faith, you of the works of the Law. And it is because of this obstinacy of yours that you have in every way been given up. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. The clearing up of the whole passage, to give the whole sense in summary, is here brought out by that blessed person. But to make this clearer, let us investigate the things he says one by one, knowing this: that what the blessed Paul aimed at was to show by all he said that God alone knows who are worthy, and no human being knows, even if he seems to know very well, but that in this judgment of his there are various errors. For He who knows the secrets of hearts, He alone knows with certainty who deserve a crown and who deserve punishment and vengeance. Hence, many of those esteemed good by people He convicts and punishes, and those suspected to be bad He crowns, after showing it is not so. Thus He forms His judgment not according to the judgment of us slaves, but according to His own keen and uncorrupt decision, and He does not wait for the outcome of actions to distinguish the wicked from him who is not so. But so we do not make the subject more obscure, let us again go to the very words of the Apostle.

This one may see also in the case of those who are punished, for what would you say of Pharaoh who was punished, and had to pay so heavy a penalty? You say he was hardened and disobedient. Was he then alone such, and not even one person else? How came he then to be so severely punished? Why even in the case of the Jews did he call that a people which was no people, or again, why not count all worthy of equal honor? For if they be (it says) as the sand of the sea, yet shall a remnant be saved. Isaiah 10:22 And why is it to be only a remnant? You see what difficulty he has filled the subject with. And with great propriety. For when you have power to throw your adversary into perplexity, do not at once bring forward the answer, because if he be found himself responsible for the same ignorance, why take unnecessary dangers upon yourself? Why make him more bold, by drawing it all upon yourself? Now tell me, O thou Jew, that hast so many perplexing questions, and art unable to answer any of them, how you come to annoy us on account of the call of the Gentiles? I, however, have a good reason to give you why the Gentiles were justified and you were cast out. And what is the reason? It is that they are of faith, you of the works of the Law. And it is owing to this obstinacy of yours that you have in every way (Mar. and several manuscripts all) been given up. For, they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:3 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 knows who are worthy, and no man whatever knows, even if he seem to know ever so well, but that in this sentence of his there are sundry aberrations. For He that knows the secrets of the hearts, He only knows 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. But that we may not make the subject more obscure, again let us go to the very words of the Apostle.

And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived by one man.

Ver. 10. And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one.

I could have mentioned the children by Keturah as well, he implies, but I don't. But to win the argument from the strongest position, I bring forward those born of the same father and mother. For they were both descended from Rebecca and from Isaac—the true-born, the chosen one, the son honored above all, of whom God said, "In Isaac shall your seed be called," who became the father of us all. But if he was our father, then his sons should have been our fathers. Yet it was not so. You see how this happens not only in Abraham's case, but also in that of his own son, and how in every case it is faith and virtue that stands out and determines the true relationship. From this we learn that children are called children of their father not only because of the manner of their birth, but also because they are worthy of their father's virtue. If it were only because of the manner of birth, then Esau should have enjoyed the same things as Jacob did. For he too came from a womb as good as dead, and his mother was barren. Yet this was not the only thing required, but character as well—a fact that provides no small amount of practical instruction for us. And he does not say that one is good and another bad, and therefore the former was honored, lest this kind of argument be turned against him: "What, are those from the Gentiles good men rather than those from the circumcision?" For even if this was actually true, he does not state it yet, as that would have seemed vexatious. Instead he has cast the whole matter upon God's knowledge, and no one would dare contradict this, however frantic they might be. For "the children being not yet born," he says, "it was said to her, 'The elder shall serve the younger.'" And he shows that noble birth according to the flesh is of no value, but we must seek virtue of soul, which God knows even before any works demonstrate it. For "the children," he says, "being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said to her that the elder shall serve the younger." For this was a sign of foreknowledge—that they were chosen from birth itself. So that the election made according to foreknowledge might clearly be of God, from the first day He immediately saw and proclaimed which was good and which was not. Do not tell me, then, that you have read the Law (he means) and the Prophets, and have been a servant for such a long time. For He who knows how to test the soul knows which is worthy of being saved. Yield, then, to the incomprehensibleness of the election. For He alone knows how to crown rightly. How many, for instance, seemed better than St. Matthew, judging by the visible display of works at that time! But He who knows hidden things and is able to test the mind's aptitude knew the pearl even though it lay in the mire, and after passing by others and being well pleased with the beauty of this one, He chose it, and by adding grace from Himself to its noble free will, He made it approved. For if in the case of these arts that are perishable, and indeed in other matters, those who are good judges do not use the grounds on which the uninstructed make their decisions when selecting from what is put before them, but from points they themselves understand well, they often reject what the uninstructed approve and choose what they reject—and horse-trainers often do this with horses, as do judges of precious stones and workers in other crafts—how much more will the God who loves mankind, the infinite Wisdom, who alone has clear knowledge of all things, not allow human guesses, but out of His own exact and unfailing Wisdom pass His sentence upon all people. This is why He chose the tax collector, the thief, and the prostitute, but dishonored priests, elders, and rulers, and cast them out. And one may see this happening in the case of martyrs as well. Many of those who were utterly despised have in the time of trial been crowned. And on the other hand, some who have been considered great by many have stumbled and fallen. Do not call the Creator to account, then, or say, "Why is it that one was crowned and another punished?" For He knows how to do these things with exactness. This is why he says, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated." That it was done with justice you indeed know from the outcome, but He Himself knew it clearly even before the outcome. For God does not simply look for a display of works, but for nobility of choice and an obedient temperament (γνώμην εὐγνώμονα) as well. For a person of this kind, if he should ever sin through some surprise, will quickly recover himself. And if he should even remain long in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, but God who knows all things will quickly draw him out. And so the person who is corrupted in this regard, even if he seems to do some good things, will perish, since he does this with an evil intention. Thus even David, after committing murder and adultery, because he did this being carried away by surprise and not from habitual practice of wickedness, quickly washed it out. The Pharisee, however, who had not committed any such crime but even had good deeds besides to boast of, lost everything through the bad spirit he had chosen.

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 your 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. For hence we learn that it is not only from the manner of birth, but owing to their being worthy of the father's virtue, that the children are called children of him. For if it were only owing to the manner of the birth, then ought Esau to have enjoyed the same as Jacob did. For he also was from a womb as good as dead, and his mother was barren. Yet this was not the only thing required, but the character too, which fact contributes no common amount of practical instruction for us. And he does not say that one is good and another bad, and so the former was honored; lest this kind of argument should be wielded against him, What, are those of the Gentiles good men rather than those of the circumcision? For even supposing the truth of the matter was so, still he does not state it yet, as that would have seemed to be vexatious. But it is upon God's knowledge that he has cast the whole, and this no one would venture to gainsay, though he were ever so frantic. For the children being not yet born, he says, it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger. And he shows that noble birth after the flesh is of no avail, but we must seek for virtue of soul, which even before the works of it God knows of. For the children, he says, being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said to her that the elder shall serve the younger: for this was a sign of foreknowledge, that they were chosen from the very birth. That the election made according to foreknowledge, might be manifestly of God, from the first day He at once saw and proclaimed which was good and which not. Do not then tell me that you have read the Law (he means) and the Prophets, and hast been a servant for such a long time. For He that knows how to assay the soul, knows which is worthy of being saved. Yield then to the incomprehensibleness of the election. For it is He alone Who knows how to crown aright. How many, for instance, seemed better than St. Matthew; to go by the exhibition of works then visible. But He that knows things undeclared, and is able to assay the mind's aptitude, knew the pearl though lying in the mire, and after passing by others, and being well pleased with the beauty of this, He elected it, and by adding to the noble born free-will grace from Himself, He made it approved. For if in the case of these arts which are perishable, and indeed in other matters, those that are good judges do not use the grounds on which the uninstructed form their decision, in selecting out of what is put before them; but from points which they are themselves well aware of, they many times disparage that which the uninstructed approve, and decide upon what they disparage: and horse-breakers often do this with horses, and so the judges of precious stones, and workmen in other arts: much more will the God that loves man, the infinite Wisdom, Who alone has a clear knowledge of all things, not allow of man's guesses, but will out of His own exact and unfailing Wisdom pass his sentence upon all men. Hence it was that He chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot; but dishonored priests, and elders, and rulers, and cast them out. And this one may see happening in the martyrs' case also. Many accordingly of those who were utterly cast aside, have in the time of trial been crowned. And, on the other hand, some that have been held great ones by many have stumbled and fallen. Do not then call the Creator to account, nor say, Why is it that one was crowned and another punished? For He knows how to do these things with exactness. Whence also he says, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. That it was with justice, you indeed know from the result: but Himself even before the result knew it clearly. For it is not a mere exhibition of works that God searches after, but a nobleness of choice and an obedient temper ( γνώμην εὐγνώμονα) besides. For a man of this kind, if he should ever sin through some surprise, will speedily recover himself. And if he should even stay long haply in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, but God Who knows all things will speedily draw him out. And so he that is herein corrupted, even if he seem to do some good things, will perish, in that he does this with an ill intention. Hence even David, after committing murder and adultery, since he did this as being carried away by surprise, and not from habitual practice of wickedness, speedily washed it out. The Pharisee, however, who had not perpetrated any such crime Luke 18:11, but even had good deeds besides to boast of, lost all by the bad spirit he had chosen.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Ver. 14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Therefore, this does not apply in our case or the Jews' case. Then he continues with another point, one that is clearer than this. What kind of point is it?

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?

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

Ver. 15. For he says 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 Paul strengthens the objection by dividing it into two parts and addressing it, while also raising another new difficulty. But to make what I have said clearer, I must explain it. God said that the elder shall serve the younger before the birth pains began. So what does this mean? Is God unrighteous? Absolutely not. Now listen to what comes next as well. For in that earlier case, virtue or vice might have been the deciding factor. But here there was one sin in which all the Jews participated—that of the golden calf—and yet some were punished while others were not punished. 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. Notice the context from Exodus 33:19. For it is not for you to know, O Moses, He means, which people deserve My compassion, but leave this to Me. But if Moses had no right to know, how much less do we. This is why Paul did not simply quote the passage, but also reminded us to whom it was spoken. For he means that God is speaking to Moses, so that at least through the dignity of this person he might make the objector humble. Having then given a solution to the difficulties raised, he divides it into two parts by bringing forward another objection as follows:

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. Exodus 33:19: observe context For it is not yours 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. Having then given a solution of the difficulties raised, he divides it in two, by bringing forward another objection besides, as follows:

So then it is not a matter of the one who wills, nor of the one who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

Ver. 16, 17. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. For the Scripture says unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Just as in that situation, he is saying, some people were saved and some were punished, the same thing happens here. This man was kept for exactly this purpose. And then he raises the objection again.

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.

Verses 18-19: "Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. You will say then to me, Why does He then find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

Ver. 18, 19. Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. You will say then unto me, Why does he then find fault? For who has resisted His will?

Look at how much effort he puts into complicating the subject from every angle. He doesn't give the answer right away, since it's helpful not to do so. Instead, he first silences the one raising the objection, speaking as follows,

See what pains he takes to embarrass the subject in every way. And the answer he does not produce immediately, it being a useful thing not to do so, but he first stops the disputant's mouth, saying as follows,

Actually, who are you, mere man, to argue back against God?

Ver. 20. Nay but, O man, who are you that repliest against God?

Paul does this to restrain the objector's untimely inquisitiveness and excessive curiosity, to check it, and to teach him to know what God is and what man is, how incomprehensible His foreknowledge is, how far above our reason, and how obedience to Him in all things is required. So when Paul has taken this first step with his listener and has quieted and softened his spirit, he then very skillfully introduces his answer, having made what he says easier for him to accept. And Paul does not say it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that it is presumptuous to raise them. For our duty is to obey what God does, not to be curious even if we do not understand the reason for them. This is why he said, "Who are you that repliest against God?" You see how completely he diminishes him, how he crushes his pride! "Who are you?" Are you a sharer of His power? No, are you sitting in judgment upon God? Why, compared to Him you cannot even have being itself—not this or that kind of being, but absolutely none! For the expression "who are you?" dismisses him even more completely than saying "you are nothing." And Paul shows his indignation in other ways through this question, and does not say "Who are you that answerest God?" but "that repliest against"—that is, that contradicts and opposes. For saying things ought to be this way or ought not to be that way is what someone does when he replies against God. See how Paul frightens them, how he terrifies them, how he makes them tremble rather than question and probe. This is what an excellent teacher does: he does not follow his students' whims in every case, but leads them to his own understanding, pulls up the thorns, and then plants the seed. He does not immediately answer every question put to him in all cases.

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 (5 manuscripts No, but what? 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 are you that repliest against God? You see how very light he makes of him, how he bears down his swelling spirit! Who are you? are you a sharer of His power? compare Job 38 nay, are you sitting in judgment upon God? Why in comparison with Him you can not have a being even! nor this or that sort of being, but absolutely none! For the expression, who are you? does much more set him at naught than you are nothing. And he takes other ways of showing further his indignation in the question, and does not say, Who are you that answerest God? but, that repliest against, that is, that gainsayest, and that opposest. For the saying things ought to be so, and ought not to be so, is what a man does that replies against. See how he scares them, how he terrifies them, how he makes them tremble rather than be questioning and curious. This is what an excellent teacher does; he does not follow his disciples' fancy everywhere, but leads them to his own mind, and pulls up the thorns, and then puts the seed in, and does not answer at once in all cases to the questions put to him.

Does the thing formed say to the one who formed it, "Why have you made me this way?" Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Ver. 20, 2l. Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why have You made me thus? Hath not the potter Read Jeremiah 18:1-10 power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Paul says this not to eliminate free will, but to show how far we ought to obey God. When it comes to calling God to account, we should be as unwilling to do so as clay would be. We ought to refrain not only from contradicting or questioning God, but even from speaking or thinking about it at all, and to become like lifeless matter that follows the potter's hands and allows itself to be drawn wherever he pleases. This is the only point to which Paul applied the illustration—not to make any statement about the rule of life, but to emphasize the complete obedience and silence required of us. We ought to observe this in all cases: we should not take illustrations in their entirety, but select what is good in them and what they were introduced for, and leave the rest aside. For instance, when Scripture says, "He couched, he lay down as a lion," we should take the indomitable and fearful aspect, not the brutality or any other characteristics belonging to a lion. And again, when God says, "I will meet them as a bereaved bear," we should take the vindictiveness. And when Scripture says, "Our God is a consuming fire," we should take the punishing power that destroys. So here too we must single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when Paul goes on to say, "Has not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" do not suppose that Paul is describing creation or implying necessity over the will, but rather illustrating God's sovereignty and the difference in His dispensations. If we do not understand it this way, various inconsistencies will follow, for if Paul were speaking here about the will and those who are good and those who are not, God Himself will be the maker of these conditions, and humanity will be free from all responsibility. At this rate, Paul will also appear to contradict himself, since he always gives chief honor to free choice. Therefore, Paul's only intention here is to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God and never to call Him to account for anything whatever. For just as the potter makes whatever he pleases from the same lump, and no one forbids it, so also when God punishes some and honors others from the same race of people, do not be curious or meddlesome about this, but worship only, and imitate the clay. And just as the clay follows the hands of the potter, so you also should follow the mind of Him who orders things this way. For He does nothing at random or by mere chance, even though you may be ignorant of the secret of His Wisdom. Yet you allow the potter to make various things from the same lump and find no fault, but you demand an account from God for His punishments and honors, and will not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is not. And because the same lump is of the same substance, you claim that people have the same dispositions. How absurd this is! And yet even with the potter, the honor and dishonor of the things made from the lump depends not on the potter but on the use made by those who handle them, so here also it depends on free choice. Still, as I said before, one must understand this illustration to have only one purpose, which is that one should not oppose God but yield to His incomprehensible Wisdom. For examples ought to be greater than the subject and than the things for which they are brought forward, so as to draw the hearer on more effectively. Since if they were not greater and did not rise far above the subject, the speaker could not attack as he ought and shame those who object. In any case, Paul silenced their ill-timed obstinacy in this way with appropriate authority. And then he introduces his answer. Now what is the answer?

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 follows 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; Numbers 24:9 let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion. And again, when He says, I will meet them as a bereaved bear Hosea 13:8, let us take the vindictiveness. And when he says, our God is a consuming fire Hebrews 12:29, the wasting power exerted in punishing. So also here must we single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when he does go on to say, Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, various incongruities will follow, for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice. There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever. For as the potter (he says) of the same lump makes what he pleases, and no one forbids it; thus also when God, of the same race of men, punishes some, and honors others, be not thou curious nor meddlesome herein, but worship only, and imitate the clay. And as it follows the hands of the potter, so do thou also the mind of Him that so orders things. For He works nothing at random, or mere hazard, though thou be ignorant of the secret of His Wisdom. Yet you allow the other of the same lump to make various things, and findest no fault: but of Him you demand an account of His punishments and honors, and will not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is not so; but since the same lump is of the same substance, you assert that there are the same dispositions. And, how monstrous this is! And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice. Still, as I said before, one must take this illustration to have one bearing only, which is that one should not contravene God, but yield to His incomprehensible Wisdom. For the examples ought to be greater than the subject, and than the things on account of which they are brought forward, so as to draw on the hearer better. Since if they were not greater and did not mount far above it, he could not attack as he ought, and shame the objectors. However, their ill-timed obstinacy he silenced in this way with becoming superiority. And then he introduces his answer. Now what is the answer?

What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and did this so that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory—even us, whom He has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.

Ver. 22, 23, 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 has chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.

Here is what he means. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath—that is, a man who through his own hard-heartedness had provoked God's anger. For even after receiving much patience from God, he did not become any better but remained unchanged. This is why Paul calls him not only a vessel of wrath but also one fitted for destruction. That is, fully fitted, but by his own doing. God had left nothing undone that might have brought him to recovery, nor did Pharaoh leave anything undone that would ruin him and place him beyond any forgiveness. Still, even though God knew this, He endured him with great patience, willing to bring him to repentance. For if He had not willed this, He would not have been so patient. But since Pharaoh would not use this patience to repent and instead fully fitted himself for wrath, God used him for the correction of others, making them better through the punishment inflicted on him, and in this way demonstrating His power. That God does not wish His power to be made known in this way, but rather through His benefits and kindnesses, Paul had shown above in every possible way. For if Paul himself does not wish to appear powerful in this way—"not that we should appear approved," he says, "but that you should do that which is honest"—then much less does God. But after God had shown patience in order to lead Pharaoh to repentance, and he did not repent, He allowed him to continue for a long time so that He might display both His goodness and His power, even if that man was not willing to gain anything from this great patience. So then, by punishing this man who remained incorrigible, He showed His power, and by having mercy on those who had committed many sins but repented, He revealed His love toward humanity. But Paul does not say "love toward humanity" but "glory," to show that this is especially God's glory and what He was above all else eager to display. But in saying "which He had beforehand prepared unto glory," he does not mean that everything is God's doing. For if that were so, there would be nothing to prevent all people from being saved. Rather, he is setting forth again God's foreknowledge and doing away with the difference between Jews and Gentiles. And on this topic he again builds a defense of his statement, which is no small defense. For it was not only among the Jews that some perished and some were saved, but this was also the case with the Gentiles. This is why he does not say "all the Gentiles" but "of the Gentiles," nor "all the Jews" but "of the Jews." So just as Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, these became vessels of mercy by their own willingness to obey. For though the greater part comes from God, they themselves also contributed something, even if small. This is why Paul does not say either "vessels of well-doing" or "vessels of boldness" (parrhesias) but "vessels of mercy," to show that the whole thing is from God. For the phrase "it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs," even if it appears in the course of the objection, would create no difficulty if Paul himself said it. Because when he says "it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs," he does not take away free will but shows that not everything is one's own doing, for it requires grace from above. For we are obligated to will and also to run, but we must not rely on our own labors but on God's love toward humanity. And he has expressed this elsewhere: "Yet not I, but the grace which was with me." And he rightly says, "which He had beforehand prepared unto glory." For since they reproached them with the fact that they were saved by grace and thought to shame them, he more than removes this insinuation. For if the thing brought glory even to God, it brought much more glory to those through whom God was glorified. But notice his forbearance and unspeakable wisdom. For when he could have given as an example of those punished not Pharaoh but Jews who had sinned, and so made his argument much clearer and shown that where there were the same ancestors and the same sins, some perished and some received mercy, and thus persuaded them not to be troubled even if some Gentiles were saved while Jews were perishing—still, so that he might not make his discourse offensive, he draws the example of punishment from the foreigner, so that he would not be forced to call them vessels of wrath. But those who obtained mercy he draws from the Jewish people. And besides, he has also spoken sufficiently on God's behalf, because even though God knew very well that the nation was fitting itself as a vessel of destruction, He still contributed everything on His part—His patience, His long-suffering, and not merely long-suffering but much long-suffering. Yet still Paul was not willing to state this plainly against the Jews. So where do some become vessels of wrath and some of mercy? From their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not only to those being saved that He showed mercy, but also to Pharaoh, as far as His part was concerned. For both they and he benefited from the same long-suffering. And if he was not saved, it was entirely due to his own will, since as far as God's part was concerned, as much was done for him as for those who were saved. Having then given to the question the answer that was provided by the facts, in order to give his argument the support of other testimony in its favor, he introduces the prophets also making the same declarations long ago. For Hosea, he says, wrote this long ago, as follows:

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 calls 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 anything of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out anything 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 you should do that which is honest,) 2 Corinthians 13:7, much less does 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. But it does not say, love towards man, but glory, to show that this is especially God's glory, and for this He was above all things earnest. But in saying, which He had afore prepared unto glory, he does not mean that all is God's doing. Since if this were so, there were nothing to hinder all men from being saved. But he is setting forth again His foreknowledge, and doing away with the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. And on this topic again he grounds a defense of his statement, which is no small one. For it was not in the case of the Jews only that some men perished, and some were saved, but with the Gentiles also this was the case. Wherefore he does not say, all the Gentiles, but, of the Gentiles, nor, all the Jews, but, of the Jews. As then Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey. For though the more part is of God, still they also have contributed themselves some little. Whence he does not say either, vessels of well-doing, or vessels of boldness ( παρρησίας), but vessels of mercy, to show that the whole is of God. For the phrase, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, even if it comes in the course of the objection, still, were it said by Paul, would create no difficulty. Because when he says, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, he does not deprive us of free-will, but shows that all is not one's own, for that it requires grace from above. For it is binding on us to will, and also to run: but to confide not in our own labors, but in the love of God toward man. And this he has expressed elsewhere. Yet not I, but the grace which was with me. 1 Corinthians 15:10 And he well says, Which He had afore prepared unto glory. For since they reproached them with this, that they were saved by grace, and thought to make them ashamed, he far more than sets aside this insinuation. For if the thing brought glory even to God, much more to them through whom God was glorified. But observe his forbearance, and unspeakable wisdom. For when he had it in his power to adduce, as an instance of those punished, not Pharaoh, but such of the Jews as had sinned, and so make his discourse much clearer, and show that where there were the same fathers, and the same sins, some perished, and some had mercy shown them, and persuade them not to be doubtful-minded, even if some of the Gentiles were saved, while the Jews were perishing; that he might not make his discourse irksome, the showing forth of the punishment he draws from the foreigner, so that he may not be forced to call them vessels of wrath. But those that obtained mercy he draws from the people of the Jews. And besides, he also has spoken in a sufficient way in God's behalf, because though He knew very well that the nation was fitting itself as a vessel of destruction, still He contributed all on His part, His patience, His long-suffering, and that not merely long-suffering, but much long-suffering; yet still he was not minded to state it barely against the Jews. Whence then are some vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerns God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved. Having then given to the question that answer which was furnished by facts, in order to give his discourse the advantage of other testimony in its favor, he introduces the prophets also making the same declarations aforetime. For Hosea, he says, of old put this in writing, as follows:

I will call them My people, who were not My people; and her beloved, who was not beloved.

Ver. 25. I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Here, to prevent them from saying that he is deceiving them with plausible arguments, he calls Hosea as a witness, who proclaims and says, I will call them My people, who were not My people. Who then are the not-people? Clearly, the Gentiles. And who are the not-beloved? The same again. However, he says that they shall become at once people, and beloved, and sons of God.

Here to prevent their saying, that you are deceiving us here with specious reasoning, he calls Hosea to witness, who cries and says, I will call them My people, who were not My people. Hosea 2:23 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.

For even they, he says, will be called the children of the living God.

Ver. 26. For even they shall be called, he says, the children of the living God.

But if they should claim that this was said about those Jews who believed, the argument still stands. For if such a great change was brought about in those who, after so many benefits, were hard-hearted and estranged and had lost their existence as a people, what would prevent even those who were not estranged after being brought to Him, but were originally aliens, from being called, and, if they obey, from being counted worthy of the same blessings? Having finished with Hosea, he does not limit himself to him alone, but also brings in Isaiah after him, speaking in harmony with him.

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? Having then done with Hosea, he does not content himself with him only, but also brings Isaiah in after him. sounding in harmony with him.

For Isaiah, he says, cries out concerning Israel.

Ver. 27. For Esaias, he says, cries concerning Israel.

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

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. Isaiah 10:22

Do you see that he too does not say that all will be saved, but only those who are worthy? For I do not care about numbers, he means, and a race spread so widely does not trouble me—I save only those who prove themselves worthy of it. And he does not mention the sand of the sea without purpose, but to remind them of the ancient promise of which they had made themselves unworthy. Why then are you troubled, as if the promise had failed, when all the Prophets show that not all are to be saved? Then he also mentions the manner of salvation. Notice the precision of the Prophet and the judgment of the Apostle—what a testimony he has cited, and how perfectly fitting! For it not only shows us that some, not all, will be saved, but also adds the way they are to be saved. How then are they to be saved, and how will God consider them worthy of the benefit?

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? Then he mentions the mode of the salvation also. Observe the accuracy of the Prophet, and the judgment of the Apostle, what a testimony he has cited, how exceedingly apposite! For it not only shows us that those to be saved are some and not all, but also adds the way they are to be saved. How then are they to be saved, and how will God count them worthy of the benefit?

He says, "He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth" (Isaiah 10:23, Septuagint).

Ver. 28. He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness, he says, because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. Isaiah 10:23, Septuagint

What he means, then, is something like this: There is no need to take a roundabout route or to endure the trouble and burden of the works of the Law, for salvation comes by a very short way. Faith is like this—it holds salvation in just a few brief words. For if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. Now you see what this means: "the Lord shall make a short word upon earth." What is truly wonderful is that this short word brings not only salvation but also righteousness.

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 you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. Romans 10:9 Now you see what this, the Lord shall make a short word (LXX. lit.) upon earth, is. And what is indeed wonderful is, that this short word carries with it not salvation only, but also righteousness.

Verse 29: And as Isaiah said before, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and would have been made like Gomorrah." Isaiah 1:9

Ver 29. 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 Gomorrha. Isaiah 1:9

Here again he shows another thing: not even those few were saved by their own resources. For they too would have perished and met Sodom's fate—that is, they would have undergone utter destruction (since the people of Sodom were also destroyed root and branch, leaving not even the slightest remnant of themselves). They too, he means, would have been like these, unless God had shown them much kindness and saved them by faith. This also happened in the case of the visible captivity, when the majority were taken away captive and perished, and only a few were saved.

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.

Verses 30-31: What should we say then? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness, specifically the righteousness that comes through faith. But Israel, which pursued the law of righteousness, has not obtained the law of righteousness.

Ver. 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, has not attained to the law of righteousness.

Here at last is the clearest answer. Since he had used proof both from facts (for not all who are of Israel are truly Israel) and from the case of the ancestors Jacob and Esau, and from the prophets Hosea and Isaiah, he now gives the most decisive answer, after first adding to the difficulty. The points being discussed, then, are two: one, that the Gentiles attained righteousness, and the other, that they attained it without pursuing it, that is, without making an effort for it. And again in the case of the Jews there are also two difficulties of the same kind: one, that Israel did not attain it, and the other, that though they made an effort, they did not attain it. This is why his choice of words is more emphatic. For he does not say that they had it, but that they attained righteousness. What is especially new and unusual is that those who pursued it did not attain it, but those who did not pursue it did attain it. And he seems to be indulging them by saying they "pursued" it. But afterward he strikes the blow home. Since he had a strong answer to give them, he had no fear of making the objection a little harsher. Therefore he does not speak of faith or the righteousness that comes from it, but shows that even before faith, on their own ground, they were defeated and condemned. For you, O Jew, he says, have not found even the righteousness that was by the Law, since you have transgressed it and become liable to the curse. But these who did not come through the Law, but by another path, have found a greater righteousness than this, namely, the righteousness that is of faith. And he had also said this before: "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God" (Romans 4), thus showing that the other righteousness was greater than this. Before, then, I said there were two difficulties, but now they have even become three questions: that the Gentiles found righteousness, and found it without pursuing it, and found a greater righteousness than that of the Law. These same difficulties appear again in the case of the Jews but from the opposite perspective: that Israel did not find it, and though he made an effort he did not find it, and did not find even the lesser righteousness. Having thrust his hearer into perplexity, he proceeds to give a concise answer and tells him the cause of all that has been said. What, then, is the cause?

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. And he seems to be indulging them by saying, followed after. But afterwards he strikes the blow home. For since he had a strong answer to give them, he had no fear of making the objection a little harsher. Hence he does not speak of faith either, and the righteousness ensuing thereon, but shows that before the faith even, on their own ground they were worsted and condemned. For thou, O Jew, he says, hast not found even the righteousness which was by the Law. For you have transgressed it, and become liable to the curse. But these that came not through the Law, but by another road, have found a greater righteousness than this, that, namely, which is of faith. And this he had also said before. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has whereof to glory, but not before God Romans 4: so showing that the other righteousness was greater than this. Before, then, I said that there were two difficulties, but now they have even become three questions: that the Gentiles found righteousness, and found it without following after it, and found a greater than that of the Law. These same difficulties are again felt in the Jews' case with an opposite view. That Israel did not find, and though he took pains he did not find, and did not find even the less. Having then thrust his hearer into perplexity, he proceeds to give a concise answer, and tells him the cause of all that is said. When then is the cause?

Because they did not seek it by faith, but as if it were by the works of the Law.

Ver. 32. 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. If he had said this right at the beginning, he would not have gained such an easy hearing. But because he sets it down after many perplexities, preparations, and demonstrations, and after using countless preparatory steps, he has finally made it more understandable and more easily accepted. For he says this is the cause of their destruction: because they wished to be justified not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. And he does not say "by works," but "as it were by the works of the Law," to show that they did not even have this righteousness.

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.

For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone;

As it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling-stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes in Him shall not be ashamed."

Ver. 33. As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offense: and whosoever believes in Him shall not be ashamed.

You see once again how this boldness comes from faith, and the gift is for everyone. This is not said only about the Jews, but about all humanity. For everyone—whether Jew, Greek, Scythian, Thracian, or anyone else—will enjoy the privilege of great boldness if he believes. But what is remarkable in the Prophet is that he foretells not only that they would believe, but also that they would not believe. For to stumble means to disbelieve. Just as in the earlier passage he points out both those who perish and those who 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 has called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles"—so here too he indicates that some will believe and some will stumble. But stumbling comes from not paying attention, from chasing after other things. Since they gave their attention to the Law, they stumbled on the stone. And he calls it "a stone of stumbling and rock of offense" based on the character and fate of those who do not believe.

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 has 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 offense he calls it from the character and end of those that believe not.

Do you understand the language being used here? Or does it still need much more clarification? I think that for those who have been paying attention, it is easy to grasp clearly. But if anyone has forgotten, you can meet privately and learn what was said. This is why I have spent more time on this explanatory part of the discussion—so that I would not be forced to interrupt the flow of the text and thereby ruin the clarity of what is being stated. For this reason too, I will end my teaching here without saying anything to you on the more immediately practical matters, as I usually do, so that I do not create fresh confusion in your memories by saying too much. It is now time to come to the proper conclusion by closing the discourse with the doxology to the God of all. Let us then both pause—I who am speaking and you who are listening—and offer up glory to Him. For His is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.

Is then the language used made plain to you? Or does it still want much in clearness? I think indeed that, to those who have been attending, it is easy to get a clear view of it. But if it has slipped anybody's memory, you can meet in private, and learn what it was. And this is why I have continued longer upon this explanatory part of the discourse, that I might not be compelled to break off the continuity of the context, and so spoil the clearness of the statements. And for this cause too I will bring my discourse to a conclusion here, without saying anything to you on the more immediately practical points, as I generally do, lest I should make a fresh indistinctness in your memories by saying so much. It is time now to come to the proper conclusion, by shutting up the discourse with the doxology to the God of all. Let us then both pause, me that am speaking and you that are hearing, and offer up glory to Him. For His is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

Post Views: 0