Romans 9

Romans 9:1

Gennadius of Constantinople: The Jews who opposed the apostles and their message said that one or another of the following propositions must be true. Either the gospel is a lie, or God is a liar.… For God promised Abraham that he would bless his offspring, but now he has shown favor to impure and foreign people, i.e., the Gentiles, instead of us. Now if your preaching is a way out of these promises, as you claim, then it is clear that God lied to our ancestors. On the other hand, if it is wrong to speak of God in this way, then you and your message are a lie.It was to answer this kind of charge that the apostle Paul wanted to work out an alternative position and demonstrate both that the message of the gospel was true and that God was not lying. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: “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 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 to-day 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 to-day 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 beareth witness.” — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: Paul, seeing that if, according to those things which he set forth above, he could be separated from the love of Christ by no power, whether heavenly or earthly, present or future, opposing him, it would seem contrary and incredible—what he was now proposing to say: that he wished to become anathema from that Christ whom he loved so inseparably, that is, to be made a stranger to him—lest he should seem to incur the mark of a lie, he sends ahead a satisfaction, so that his word may in no way be doubted, and he says: “I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit.” But let us see why he said, “I speak the truth in Christ,” as though showing that there is some truth which is not in Christ. And see whether we can in some such way distinguish the truth which is in Christ from that which is not in Christ: for elsewhere too the same Apostle says, “The truth of Christ is in me, that I do not lie.” The truth of Christ, therefore, must be believed to be there where the remaining virtues also are, which are described as being Christ: that is, where righteousness is, where peace is, where the Word of God is, there also is the truth of Christ. But there is truth even in injustice: as if, for example, we should say that that demon of Python, which in the Acts of the Apostles is reported to have dwelt in a certain servant girl and to have cried out after the apostles, that “these are servants of the Most High God, who announce to men the way of God”—there was truth in these words, for what was said was true; but that truth was not in Christ; and therefore Paul, turning to her, said: “Be silent, and come out of her.” But that also was truth which Caiaphas said: “It is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish”; but nevertheless that truth was not in Christ. And therefore the Apostle, to distinguish it from that truth which is outside Christ, says that he speaks the truth in Christ. But this also, which he says, “my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,” seems to me to bear a similar understanding. For conscience renders testimony even to the Gentiles, according to what the same Apostle says in the earlier passages: “their conscience rendering them testimony, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or even defending one another.” In those, therefore, in whom their own thoughts have something to accuse, and conscience comes forward for testimony, it cannot be said that for evil deeds conscience renders testimony in the Holy Spirit. But in the Apostle, where thought no longer has anything to accuse, rightly does conscience render testimony in the Holy Spirit. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Because Paul says that his conscience bears him witness, he shows that he is telling the truth, which conscience corroborates in everyone, and he establishes that he is not charged with lying by an accusation from within. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:2

Ambrosiaster: Since it appears that earlier he was speaking against the Jews, who thought that they were justified by the law, Paul now shows his desire and love for them and says that his conscience bears witness in Christ Jesus and in the Holy Spirit. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: “That I have a great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ.” What sayest thou, O Paul? from Christ, thy beloved One, from Whom neither kingdom nor hell, nor things visible nor intelligible, nor another world as great, would separate thee, is it from Him that thou wouldest now be accursed? What has happened? Hast thou changed, hast thou given over that love? No, he replies, fear not. Rather I have even made it more intense. How then is it that thou wouldest fain be accursed, and seekest a separation, and a removal to such a distance, that after it there is no possibility of finding a more distant one? Because I love Him exceedingly, he may reply.

How, pray, and in what manner? For the things seem a riddle. Or rather, if you will, let us learn what the curse is, and then we will question him upon these points, and shall understand this unspeakable and extraordinary love. What then is the curse? Hear his own words, “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.” That is, let him be set apart from all, removed from all. For as in the case of a thing dedicated, which is set apart for God, no one would venture so much as to touch it with his hand or even to come near it; so too with a man who is put apart from the Church, in cutting him off from all, and removing him as far off as possible, he calls him by this name anathema in a contrary sense, thus with much fear denouncing to all men to keep apart from him, and to spring away from him.

And the answer he does not produce forthwith, it being a useful thing not to do so, but he first stops the disputant’s mouth, saying as follows, for he does not say, it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that it is presumptuous to raise them. For our business is to obey what God does, not to be curious even if we do not know the reason of them. Wherefore he said, “Who art thou that repliest against God?” You see how very light he makes of him, how he bears down his swelling spirit! “Who art thou?” art thou a sharer of His power? nay, art thou sitting in judgment upon God? Why in comparison with Him thou canst not have a being even! nor this or that sort of being, but absolutely none! For the expression, “who art thou?” doth much more set him at naught than “thou art nothing.” And he takes other ways of showing further his indignation in the question, and does not say, “Who art thou that” answerest “God?” but, “that repliest against,” that is, that gainsayest, and that opposest. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: Consider, however, the greatness of the apostolic breast. He cannot be separated from the love of God; what he speaks, he speaks in Christ; what he holds in his conscience is contained by the Holy Spirit. What heavens, I ask, what thrones, what most ample minds of the heavenly powers will be able to contain the whole Trinity in seats so ample? “For,” he says, “I have great sadness and continual sorrow in my heart.” Very well, you have sadness; very well, you take sorrow at the perdition of your brothers “who are kinsmen according to the flesh”; but is it to such a point that you wish to become anathema from Christ? And what does their salvation profit you, if you are separated from salvation? And how will you save others, if you yourself perish? It is not so, he says: rather, I have learned from my Master and Lord that “he who wishes to save his soul will lose it; and he who loses it will find it.” What wonder, then, if the Apostle wishes to become anathema for his brothers, who knows that he who was in the form of God emptied himself of it, and took the form of a servant, and was made a curse for us? What wonder, then, if, when the Lord was made a curse for his servants, a servant should become anathema for his brothers? And this, I think, is what Moses also said to the Lord when the people had sinned: “And now, if indeed you forgive them their sin, forgive; but if not, blot me out of the book of life which you have written.” What then? Do you wish Paul to seem inferior to Moses? He asks to be blotted out of the book of life for his brothers; ought Paul not to wish to be anathema for his brothers? But perhaps someone may say that Moses, in offering this, deserved to obtain salvation for the people, whereas Paul indeed wishes it, but was not heard. What if I show you that Paul was heard even more than Moses? For all those who had gone out of Egypt through Moses fell in the desert. But the descendants of those who received the land of promise even now wander from it, exiles and outcasts. But hear what Paul says about Israel: “I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that blindness in part has befallen Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should enter in, and so all Israel should be saved.” You see, therefore, that Paul was heard, and that because he offered himself as anathema, he deserved salvation for his brothers. And therefore it seems to me that he set down all those things beforehand—that he could by no power be torn away from the love of God—so that when he offers himself as anathema for his brothers, you should not judge his fall to be possible: but just as he who is inseparable from the Father by nature, and immortal, came into death and descended into the lower regions, so this man too, imitating his Master, though he cannot be separated from the love of Christ, becomes anathema from Christ for his brothers—by devotion, certainly, not by transgression. But that the Israelites are Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh” needs no exposition. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Because Paul intends to proceed against the Jews, he first assures them that he does not speak out of hatred for them, but out of love, for it pains him that they do not believe in Christ, who had come to save them as soon as possible. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: The construction here is incomplete. Paul should have added that his unceasing anguish was due to the rejection or unbelief of the Jews. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 9:3

Cyprian: That Christ is God. In Genesis: “And God said unto Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place of Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to that God who appeared unto thee when thou reddest from the face of thy brother Esau.” Also in Isaiah: “Thus saith the Lord, the God of Sabaoth, Egypt is wearied; and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the tall men of the Sabeans, shall pass over unto Thee, and shall be Thy servants; and shall walk after Thee bound with chains; and shall worship Thee, and shall pray to Thee, because God is in Thee, and there is no other God beside Thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, our Saviour. They shall all be confounded and fear who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion.” Likewise in the same: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every channel shall be filled up, and every mountain and bill shall be made low, and all crooked places shall be made straight, and rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, because the Lord hath spoken it.” Moreover, in Jeremiah: This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed beside Him, who hath found all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob His son, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and He conversed with men." Also in Zechariah God says: “And they shall cross over through the narrow sea, and they shall smite the waves in the sea, and they shall dry up all the depths of the rivers; and all the haughtiness of the Assyrians shall be confounded, and the sceptre of Egypt shall be taken away. And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God, and in His name shall they glory, saith the Lord.” Moreover, in Hosea the Lord saith: “I will not do according to the anger of mine indignation, I will not allow Ephraim to be destroyed: for I am God, and there is not a holy man in thee: and I will not enter into the city; I will go after God.” Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.” So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness.” Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Also in the same: “The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Also Paul to the Romans: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israel-ires: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.” Also in the Apocalypse: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God! Thus He Himself says in the Gospel according to John: “Is it not written in the law, that I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the word of God was given, and the Scripture cannot be relaxed, do ye say to Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? But if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, and ye will not believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him.” Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: “And ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Jerome: Why the Apostle Paul writes in the same Epistle to the Romans: I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites, to whom the adoption belongs, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:3 et seqq.) Indeed, a valid question, how can the Apostle who said above: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? (Romans 8:35) And again: But I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39), now confirm under oath and say: I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: That I have great sadness, and continual sorrow in my heart. For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh. And so on. For if someone’s love for God is so strong that he cannot be separated from His love, by neither the fear of death, nor the hope of life, nor persecution, nor hunger, nor nudity, nor danger, nor sword; and if Angels also, and Powers, both present and future, and all the Forces of heaven, and both the high and the deep, and every creature at once were to assail him, which cannot possibly be done: yet he would not be separated from the love of God, which he has in Christ Jesus: what is this great change, rather unheard-of prudence, that for the love of Christ, he would not want to have Christ? And lest we do not believe him, he swears and confirms in Christ, and calls his conscience as a witness, the Holy Spirit, that he has sadness, not light or casual, but great and unbelievable, and has sorrow in his heart, which does not sting for an hour and pass, but which continually remains in his heart. Where does this sadness lead? What profit is there in unceasing pain? Is it wished to be anathema from Christ, and to perish, so that others may be saved? But if we consider the voice of Moses asking God for the people of the Jews, and saying, “If thou wilt forgive them their sin, forgive; but if not, blot me out of thy book, which thou hast written” (Exod. 32. 31. 32), we will see the same feelings in Moses and Paul towards the flock entrusted to them. For a good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. But a hireling, who is not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and flees. And to say this same thing: I wished to be cursed by Christ; and erase me from your book which you have written. For those who are erased from the book of the living, and are not written with the just, are made anathema by the Lord. At the same time, see how great is the love of the Apostle for Christ, that he desires to die for him, and to perish alone, provided that the whole human race believes in him. To perish, however, not forever, but for the present. For whoever shall lose his life for Christ, shall save it (Matt. 10:39). Hence, he takes as an example the Forty-Third Psalm: For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter (Ps. 43:22). Therefore, the Apostle wishes to die in the flesh, so that others may be saved in the spirit; to pour out his blood so that many souls may be preserved. However, that anathema sometimes signifies slaying can be proved by many testimonies of the Old Testament. And lest we think the grief to be slight, and the cause of sorrow small, he joins it and says: For my brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh. When he calls them kinsmen and brethren according to the flesh, he shows that they are strangers to him in spirit. Whose adoption," he says, “is signified more significantly in Greek as ὑιοθεσία; these things were spoken of by the Lord: ‘You are my firstborn son, Israel,’ and ‘I have begotten sons and exalted them’ (Isaiah 1:2), but now he says, ‘Alien sons have lied to me’ (Psalms 17:46). And their glory is that they were chosen from all nations to be a special people of God, and their covenants, one in the letter and the other in the spirit, meant that those who once served ceremonies of the abolished Law in the flesh would afterwards serve in the spirit the commands of the eternal Gospel. And the law addresses both the new and the old Testament. And worship, that is, true religion. And promises; to fulfill whatever was promised to the fathers in their descendants. And (which is greater than all) from whom Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. And in order that we might know who this Christ is, he embraces the causes of his pain in one speech, who is blessed above all God forever, amen. And this great and such, is not received from those from whom he was born. And nevertheless, he praises the truth of judgement, so that the sentence of God may not seem displeasing to his kindred and brothers, and be either austere or excessive. In which, therefore, such great goods were present, he laments why so many evils are present now. — Letter 121, Chapter 9

Pelagius: Paul wished this at one time, before he became a follower of Christ.… But after he recognized the truth, he abandoned those whom he used to love in this way, yet still they do not repent. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:4

John Chrysostom: “To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father’s, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

And what is this? one asks. For if with a view to the belief of others he was willing to become accursed, he ought to have also wished for this in the Gentiles’ behalf. But in fact if he had prayed for the Gentiles only, this would not have been equally clear. But since it is for the Jews only, it is a clear proof that it is only for Christ’s glory that he is thus earnest.

For what he means is something of this kind: all were talking and accusing God, that after being counted worthy of the name of sons, and receiving the Law, and knowing Him beyond all men, and enjoying such great glory, and serving him beyond the whole world, and receiving the promises, and being from fathers who were His friends, and what was the greatest thing of all, having been forefathers of Christ Himself (for this is the meaning of the words, “of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came”), they are now cast out and disgraced; and in their place are introduced men who had never known Him, of the Gentiles. Now since they said all this, and blasphemed God, Paul hearing it, and being cut to the heart, and vexed for God’s glory’s sake, wished that he were accursed, had it been possible, so that they might be saved, and this blasphemy be put a stop to, and God might not seem to have deceived the offspring of those to whom He promised the gifts. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: “Whose,” he says, “is the adoption of sons.” For the sons of Israel were adopted by God at that time “when the Most High divided the nations, and scattered the sons of Adam according to the number of the angels of God, and the Lord’s portion was Jacob, and Israel the cord of his inheritance.” This, then, is the adoption of sons. “And the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law.” Concerning the glory of the law that was given, it has often already been said, as the Apostle himself also says: “For if that which is being abolished is through glory,” that is, the Old Testament, “much more is that which remains in glory,” namely the preaching of the Gospel. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: But as for what he says, “the covenants and the giving of the law,” it might perhaps seem that he is saying one and the same thing. For the law which was given is itself also called a covenant. But I think the distinction is this: that the giving of the law was indeed one, and took place once through Moses; whereas covenants were established frequently. For as often as they sinned and were cast off, so often do they appear to have been disinherited. And again, as often as God, being made propitious once more, called them back and led them into the inheritance of his own possession, so often must he be believed to have restored the covenants and to have written them down as heirs. “And the worship, and the promises.” By “worship” he means the priestly offices; by “the promises,” those which were made to the fathers, and which are hoped to be given to those who through faith are called sons of Abraham. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: “The sonship” belongs to the Jews, for of them it was said: “Israel, my firstborn son.” They had the old law and the promise of the new law. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: For although the Jew withal be called “a son,” and an “elder one,” inasmuch as he had priority in adoption; although, too, he envy the Christian the reconciliation of God the Father,-a point which the opposite side most eagerly catches at,-still it will be no speech of a Jew to the Father: “Behold, in how many years do I serve Thee, and Thy precept have I never transgressed. — On Modesty

Romans 9:5

Ambrosiaster: Paul lists so many indications of the nobility and dignity of the Jewish people and of the promises they received in order to deepen his grief for all these things, because by not accepting the Savior they lost the privilege of their fathers and the merit of the promises, and they became worse than the Gentiles, whom they had previously detested when they were without God. For it is a worse evil to lose a dignity than never to have had it.As there is no mention of the Father’s name in this verse and Paul is talking about Christ, it cannot be disputed that he is called God here. For if Scripture is speaking about God the Father and adds the Son, it often calls the Father God and the Son Lord. If someone does not think that it is said here about Christ that he is God, then let him name the person about whom he thinks it is said, for there is no mention of God the Father in this verse. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: The Jews, who held only the first part of this confession, are refuted by the Lord. For when he asked them whose son they said Christ was, they answered “David’s.” This is true according to the flesh. But concerning his divinity … they answered nothing. Therefore the Lord said to them: “Why did David, in the Spirit, call him Lord?” in order that they might realize that they had only confessed that Christ is the son of David and had not said that Christ is Lord of this same David. The first fact is true according to his assumption of flesh, the other accordingto the eternity of his divinity. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 59

Clement of Rome: Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. [Romans 9:5] From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. — Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

Cyril of Alexandria: God chose Israel for himself from the beginning, which is why he called it the firstborn. But the Israelites fell because they were proud, wicked and, worst of all, murderers of their Lord. Therefore they perished, for they were rejected and abandoned and excluded from God’s company, placed behind even the Gentiles and cut off from the hope promised to their ancestors. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Hippolytus of Rome: Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, “Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father; " and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed Almighty by the Father. And in like manner Paul also, in setting forth the truth that all things are delivered unto Him, said, “Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For all things are put under Him. But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. Then shall He also Himself be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, He is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him, that in all there might be manifested one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father hath made all things subject, with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For He speaks thus: “I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” If then, Noetus ventures to say that He is the Father Himself, to what father will he say Christ goes away according to the word of the Gospel? But if he will have us abandon the Gospel and give credence to his senselessness, he expends his labour in vain; for “we ought to obey God rather than men.” — Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

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

Methodius of Olympus: We keep festival, not according to the vain customs of the Greek mythology; we keep a feast which brings with it no ridiculous or frenzied banqueting of the gods, but which teaches us the wondrous condescension to us men of the awful glory of Him who is God over all. — Methodius Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna

Origen of Alexandria: Yet it is certain that also according to the flesh, from that very race, that is, from the Israelite race, there came not only the fathers but also Christ, as he says too through the prophet: “Woe to them, for my flesh is from them.” But why “woe to them”? Because Jesus was born “for the fall and for the rising again of many,” and because he was rejected by those whose flesh he was, and was received by the Gentiles by whom he was not known, as he says also through David: “A people whom I did not know has served me.” Of them, therefore, is Christ also according to the flesh. “Who is God over all, blessed for ever.” That Christ is one thing according to the flesh and another according to the spirit, he had already indicated in the earlier parts of this Epistle, where he says: “Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was designated Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification.” And how he is Son of God according to the spirit, and son of David according to the flesh, we expounded there more fully as far as our powers allowed. Him, therefore, whom he there called Son of God according to the spirit, here, as the order of teaching advances and his hearers make progress, he declares to be himself God, “who is over all, blessed.” And I wonder how certain people, reading what the same Apostle says elsewhere: “One God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,” deny that the Son of God ought to be professed as God, lest they should seem to speak of two gods. And what will they do with this passage of the Apostle, in which Christ is openly declared to be “God over all”? But those who think thus do not notice that, just as he did not say that the Lord Jesus Christ is one Lord in such a way that on this account God the Father should not be called Lord, so also he did not say that God the Father is one God in such a way that God the Son should not be believed to be God. For the Scripture is true which says: “Know that the Lord himself is God.” Yet both are one God, because the Son has no other beginning of divinity than the Father; but the Son is, as Wisdom says, the “purest emanation” of that one Paternal fount itself. Christ, then, is “God over all.” Which “all”? Those, without doubt, of which we spoke a little before: “above principalities, and powers, and virtues, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come.” But he who is over all has no one above himself. For he is not after the Father, but from the Father. And this same thing the Wisdom of God gave us to understand concerning the Holy Spirit also, where it says: “The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world; and he who contains all things has knowledge of the voice.” If therefore the Son is called “God over all,” and the Holy Spirit is recorded as containing all things, while God the Father is he “from whom are all things,” it is plainly shown that the nature and substance of the Trinity is one, which is over all. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: The patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Paul writes here against the Manicheans, Photinus and Arius because Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, and God, blessed forever. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of Christ in this point alone (to name no more, not to delay my own course), that he suffered persecution at the hands of his brethren, and was sold into Egypt, on account of the favour of God; just as Christ was sold by Israel-(and therefore, ) “according to the flesh,” by His “brethren” -when He is betrayed by Judas. — An Answer to the Jews

Tertullian: But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” For I should give the name of” sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. — Against Praxeas

Romans 9:6

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

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

This then was why he did not speak of the Gentiles (for to them no promises had been made by Him, nor had they worshipped Him, wherefore neither did any blaspheme Him on their account), but it was for the Jews who had both received the promise, and had also been brought into closer connection with Him than others, that he expressed this wish. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: Since he had said above that for his brethren, “who are his kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,” he would wish even to become anathema, on the ground that theirs was both the adoption of sons, and the giving of the law, and the promises — concerning these he now says that the word of God has not failed, that is, the promise which was made to them has not come to nothing. For whoever shall have been the true Israel — not one deriving his descent from Abraham merely by carnal lineage (“For not those who are the sons of the flesh, these also are the sons of God”), but one who descends from Abraham according to the promise of faith — he it is who also obtains the promises of God. For of the race of Israel there are many, but not all are called Israel. For Israel was so named from seeing God. For thus Jacob himself says: “I have seen the Lord face to face, and my soul has been saved.” Therefore, because he saw God, he was called Israel. But whoever does not see him who said, “He who sees me, sees the Father also,” cannot be called Israel. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 9:7

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

Diodorus of Tarsus: Paul wants to say that it is not those who are of Abraham’s flesh who are his children, but those who are of the promise, who are godly and just, whom God promised according to his foreknowledge would be children of Abraham, just as Isaac was made righteous by the promise. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.” Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word hath not fallen to the ground. Of what kind, pray, is the seed then? It is no saying of mine, he means, but the Old Testament itself explains itself by saying as follows, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” What is, “In Isaac?” Explain. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: “Nor are all also sons because they are the seed of Abraham.” This, evidently, was already being signified then in Abraham, when, though he had many sons — whom the Apostle calls sons of the flesh — the posterity of his seed was placed in Isaac alone, who was the son of the promise. And so now too, those who after the manner of Isaac are sons of the promise — that is, of that faith through which Abraham deserved to receive the promise of the future inheritance — they alone are reckoned as the seed; for in them the succession of the inheritance is declared. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Not all Jews are children of Abraham, but some still are; and if not all Israelites are from Israel, then some … are from the Gentiles. Even so, the sons of Abraham were named in Isaac alone and not in Ishmael, although he too descended from Abraham’s line. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

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

Romans 9:8

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

And what he means is something of this sort: as many as have been born as Isaac was, they are sons of God, and of the seed of Abraham. And this is why he said, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” That one may learn that they who are born after the fashion of Isaac, these are in the truest sense Abraham’s children. In what way was Isaac born then? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of the promise. — Homily on Romans 16

Pelagius: Ishmael was born of a maidservant by sexual intercourse, but Isaac was begotten by supernatural means from old people, by God’s promise. So the promise, which Abraham’s faith merited, now makes Christians sons of Abraham, so that Abraham is indeed the father of many nations. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:9

Ambrosiaster: This prefigures Christ, because Christ was promised to Abraham as a future son, in whom the word of the promise would be fulfilled. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: This passage [to v. 29] is rather obscure. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.1

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

For as after first foretelling the birth of Isaac, He then accomplished it; so ours also He had announced before, many ages ago by all the Prophets, and afterwards brought it to pass. You know how great He has set it forth as being, and how, as He promised a great thing, He furnished it with abundant ease! But if the Jews were to say, that the words, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” mean this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens. You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of baptism from above was sketched out beforehand. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: The Apostle set out to pursue this point: that although the people of Israel has been rejected through unbelief, nevertheless those promises of God which had been made toward them have not fallen away and been rendered void; and he teaches that, although Abraham had many sons, the promise was made in Isaac alone. “For not they,” he says, “who are the children of the flesh, these are the children of God.” And he strives to show how Isaac is not a son of the flesh, but is a son of God; and he returns to those things which are written about him in Genesis. “This,” he says, “is the word of promise: At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” Therefore, he says, Isaac is not born through the origin of a fleshly nativity, seeing that Abraham’s body was already accounted dead, and Sarah’s womb was already dead, as was said above; but through the power of him who said, “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” Rightly, therefore, he is called not a son of the flesh but of God, who is born from the coming and the word of God. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Romans 9:10

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

Irenaeus: The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: “Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,” she received answer from the Word, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.” From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4

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

I might, he implies, have mentioned the children by Keturah besides, but I do not. But to gain the victory from a vantage ground it is those born of one and the same father, and mother too, that I bring forward. For they were both sprung from Rebecca, and from Isaac the true-born, the elect, the son honored above all, of whom He said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” who became “the father of us all;” but if he was our father, then should his sons have been our fathers; yet it was not so. You see how this happens not in Abraham’s case only, but also in that of his son himself, and how it is faith and virtue in all cases that is conspicuous, and gives the real relationship its character. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: This reasoning, then, he says, must be received not only concerning Isaac, but concerning Jacob as well. For Rebecca too, he says, did not bring forth her offspring according to the order of fleshly nativity. For when she had conceived twins from a single act of intercourse with Isaac, before the birth had yet taken place, and before any deeds of the boys, good or evil, had been done among men, the divine election is held toward Jacob, and it is said, “that the elder shall serve the younger,” and, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Pelagius: God’s foreknowledge does not prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

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

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

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul reinforces here what he said earlier about Sarah and Isaac, in case someone might think that the election depended on the mother. For although Rebecca had twins, only one of them was chosen. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 9:11

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

Augustine of Hippo: This moves some people to suppose that the apostle Paul had taken away the freedom of the will, by which we either please God by the good of faithfulness or offend him by the evil of unfaithfulness. These people say that God loved the one and hated the other before either one was born or could have done either good or evil. But we reply that God did this by foreknowledge, by which he knows what even the unborn will be like in the future. But let no one say God chose the works of the man whom he loved, although these works did not yet exist, because he knew in advance what they would be. If God elected works, why does the apostle say that election is not according to works? Thus we should understand that we do good works through love, and we have love by the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says himself: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.“Therefore no one should glory in his works as if they were his own, for he does them by the gift of God, since love itself works good in him. What then has God elected? If he gives the Holy Spirit, through whom love works good, to whomever he wishes, how does he choose whom to give him to? If he does not choose according to merit, it is not election, for everyone is equal prior to merit, and it is impossible to choose between totally equal things. But since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not choose works (which he himself bestows), for he gives the Holy Spirit so that through love we might do good works. Rather, he chooses faith. For unless each one believes in him and perseveres in his willingness to receive, he does not receive the gift of God (i.e., the Holy Spirit), through whom, by an outpouring of love, he is enabled to do good works. Therefore God did not choose anyone’s works (which he himself will give) by foreknowledge, but by foreknowledge he chose faith. He chose the one whom he knew in advance would believe in him, and to him he has given the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he may attain everlasting life. Belief is our work, but good deeds belong to him who gives the Holy Spirit to believers. This argument was used against certain Jews who, once they believed in Christ, gloried in the works they had done before receiving grace. They claimed that they had merited the grace of the gospel by these earlier works, even though only a person who has received grace can do good works. Furthermore, grace is such that the call comes to the sinner when he has no merit and prevents him from going straight to his damnation. But if he follows God’s call of his own free will, he will also merit the Holy Spirit, through whom he can do good works. And remaining in the Spirit (also by free will) he will merit eternal life, which cannot be marred by any corruption. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 60

Augustine of Hippo: No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling; they do not precede it.… Unless the mercy of God in calling precedes faith, no one can even believe and thus begin to be justified and to receive the power to do good works. So grace comes before all merit. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from the God who called him and not from any meritorious works of his own. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.1

Augustine of Hippo: We know that children not yet born have done nothing either good or evil in their own life, nor have they any merits from a previous life, which no individual can have as his own. They come into the miseries of this life, their carnal birth according to Adam involves them at the moment of their nativity in the contagion of the primal death, and they are not delivered from the penalty of eternal death which a just verdict passing from one lays upon all unless they are born again in Christ through grace. — LETTER 217

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

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

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

The clearing up then of the whole passage, to give the whole sense summarily, is here brought out by that blessed person. But that this may be clearer, let us investigate the things he says also one by one; this knowing, that what the blessed Paul aimed at was, to show by all that he said that God only knoweth who are worthy, and no man whatever knoweth, even if he seem to know ever so well, but that in this sentence of his there are sundry aberrations. For He that knoweth the secrets of the hearts, He only knoweth for a certainty who deserve a crown, and who punishment and vengeance. Hence it is that many of those, by men esteemed good, He convicts and punishes, and those suspected to be bad He crowns, after showing it not to be so; thus forming his sentence not after the judgment of us slaves, but after his own keen and uncorrupt decision, and not waiting for the issue of actions to look at the wicked and him who is not so therefrom. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: And why these things were so spoken, he teaches: “That according to election,” he says, “the purpose of God might stand, it was said not of works, but of him that calleth”; that is, that not those who are children of the flesh, but those who are children of God, these should be reckoned for the seed. For just as there, out of many children of the flesh, Isaac is chosen by God to be adopted into a son of God, so also here, out of two, the younger, Jacob, is chosen, to be adopted into a son of God; and thus it becomes true that the promises of God stand firm not in the children of the flesh, but in the children of God. But all these things look to this, that the Apostle may prove this: that if either Isaac or Jacob had been chosen by God for those merits which they had acquired while placed in the flesh, and had deserved to be justified through the works of the flesh, then surely the grace of their merit could pertain also to a posterity of flesh and blood. But as it is, since their election was made not from works, but from the purpose of God, and from the free decision of him who calls, the grace of the promises is fulfilled not in the children of the flesh, but in the children of God — that is, in those who, like them, are chosen from the purpose of God, and adopted into sons. For in these also is fulfilled that which we have already expounded above, that “whom he foreknew, them he also predestined; and whom he predestined, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” And whatever we have expounded above concerning these words, the same suffices fully and abundantly for the explanation of the present passage also, lest by repeating the same things we should beget weariness in our readers. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Perhaps this happened so that it might be shown that even from a set of twins the one who does not believe is abandoned. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:12

Augustine of Hippo: No one could say that Jacob had conciliated God by meritorious works before he was born, so that God should say this of him.… Nor had Isaac conciliated God by any previous meritorious works, so that his birth should have been promised.… Good works do not produce grace, but are produced by grace. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.3

Pelagius: Here Paul shows that the people who came afterward belonged to the promise after the manner of Isaac. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:13

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

Augustine of Hippo: If God hated Esau because he was a vessel made for dishonor, how could it be true that God hates nothing which he has made? For in that case, God hated Esau, even though he had made him as a vessel for dishonor. This knotty problem is solved if we understand that God is the Maker of all creatures. Every creature of God is good. Every man is a creature as man but not as sinner. God is the Creator both of the body and of the soul of man. Neither of these is evil, and God hates neither. He hates nothing which he has made. But the soul is more excellent than the body, and God is more excellent than both soul and body, being the maker and fashioner of both. In man he hates nothing but sin. Sin in man is perversity and lack of order, i.e., a turning away from the Creator, who is more excellent, and a turning to the creatures which are inferior to him. God does not hate Esau the man, but he does hate Esau the sinner. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.18

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

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

Pelagius: The apostle shows that what had been told to Rebecca was fulfilled in her descendants. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

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

Romans 9:14

Augustine of Hippo: What is to be said of infants who receive the sacrament of Christian grace, as is usual at that age, and thus undoubtedly have a claim to eternal life and the kingdom of heaven if they die at once, whereas if they are allowed to grow up, some become even apostates? Why is this, except that they are not included in that predestination and calling according to his purpose which is without repentance? Why some are included and others are not can be for a hidden reason but not for an unjust one. — LETTER 149

Caesarius of Arles: Why does God not scourge all men mercifully in such a way so as not to allow anyone to be hardened against him? Either this is to be ascribed to the wickedness of those who have deserved to become hardened, or it is to be referred to the inscrutable judgments of God, which are often hidden but are never unjust. — SERMON 101.5

Clement of Alexandria: All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named “called.” For there is no unrighteousness with God. Those of either race who have believed, are “a peculiar people.” And in the Acts of the Apostles you will find this, word for word, “Those then who received his word were baptized;” but those who would not obey kept themselves aloof. To these prophecy says, “If ye be willing and hear me, ye shall eat the good things of the land;” proving that choice or refusal depends on ourselves. — The Stromata Book 1

John Chrysostom: “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” Hence there is no such thing in the case of us and the Jews. And then he goes on with another thing, a more clear than this. And of what sort is it? — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: It is fitting that the reader of these things should recall rather attentively that comparison which we set down in the earlier books concerning the manner in which the apostolic discourse is dispensed: that, as in a certain royal house which is laid out with manifold entrances and exits, one passes from one chamber into another in such a way that scarcely any signs appear of the one entering or of the one going out — so also Paul seems to open up the secrets of divine things a little, yet not to spread them out plainly and openly. And so, in view of what he had said above concerning Isaac and Jacob — that by election and from the purpose of God, before they had done any work good or evil, God had said, either of the former, “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son,” or of the latter, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” — when in the present chapter he had introduced a certain person as though contradicting him and raising a question, and said, “Is there unrighteousness with God?” and had answered, “God forbid,” but “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy”: and if he chose Pharaoh for this reason, that he might show in him the might of his power; and if he himself has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens — why then, he says, does he find fault with men? and why is the one who sins blamed, when such is his will concerning each one? To the one, then, who raises these objections and others like them, and who thrusts himself rather impudently and importunately into the bedchamber of this mystery, he meets him with the rebuke of a most worthy exclamation, and says: “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” As if he were saying: Who are you who plunge into the palace of the king, and have dared to penetrate the secrets of the inner chamber? Therefore let us too in such matters, standing as it were in a royal court, walk with suspended foot, and pass over few things in speech and more in silence, having the Apostle Paul himself made our teacher and guide of this journey. So then, in the person of one contradicting him, the Apostle says: “Is there unrighteousness with God?” and at once at the outset he answers, “God forbid”; so that to all the other things which are to be objected in the person of the contradictor, the Apostle may always be seen to answer, “God forbid.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 9:15

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

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

Augustine of Hippo: God was merciful to us in the first place in that he called us while we were still sinners … and he continues to have mercy on us now that we believe. How does God have mercy a second time? He gives his Holy Spirit to the man who believes and asks for him. And having given the Spirit God will then have compassion on those to whom he has already shown compassion. That is to say, he will make the believer compassionate so that he may do good works through love. Let no one take the credit for acting compassionately, since it was by the Holy Spirit that God gave him this love, without which no one can be compassionate.God did not elect those who had done good works, but those who believed, so that he might enable them to do good works. It is our part to believe and to will and his part to give to those who believe and will the ability to do good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts in order to make us compassionate. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 61

Clement of Alexandria: “For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” saith the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness’ sake. — The Stromata Book 4

John Chrysostom: “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Here again he adds force to the objection by dividing it in two and meeting it, and starting another fresh difficulty. But to make what I have said clearer, one must needs explain it. God, he means, said that “the elder shall serve the younger,” before the travail. What then? “Is God unrighteous?” By no means. Now listen to what follows also. For in that case the virtue or the vice, might be the decisive thing. But here there was one sin on which all the Jews joined, that of the molten calf, and still some were punished, and some were not punished. And this is why He says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” For it is not thine to know, O Moses, he means, which are deserving of My love toward man, but leave this to Me. But if Moses had no right to know, much less have we. And this is why he did not barely quote the passage, but also called to our minds to whom it was said. For it is Moses, he means, that he is speaking to, that at least by the dignity of the person he might make the objector modest. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: This objector, then, uses also the words of Moses, in which the Lord says to him: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whom I will show compassion.” But if this is so, he says, then salvation is not of him that wills nor of him that runs, but of him on whom God has mercy. For to Pharaoh also, he says, it is said, “For this very purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth”; so that from this it may seem to be shown that, if Pharaoh was chosen for this, that through him the power of God might be declared to men, it was not in his own power that he perished. And after everything he adds: “Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens.” This, he says, is what you who contradict assert: that God complains and accuses men without cause. For if he himself chooses whom he wills, and casts off whom he wills, who resists the will of him through whom are all things? Without doubt this contradiction is aiming at this: that there is no freedom of choice in man, and that no one has … In that little book where we discussed the freedom of the will, each several point has been examined according to our ability, things which suffice more than enough for instruction. Nevertheless, we will even now briefly remind the reader of some of the things said there. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: This means: “I will have mercy on him whom I have foreknown will be able to deserve compassion, so that I have already had mercy on him.” — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:16

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

Augustine of Hippo: Paul does not take away the freedom of the will but says that our will is not sufficient unless God helps us, making us compassionate so that we might do good works by the gift of the Holy Spirit.… We cannot will unless we are called, and when we will after our calling neither our will nor our striving is enough unless God gives strength to our striving and leads us where he calls. It is therefore clear that it is not by willing nor by striving but by the mercy of God that we do good works, even though our will (which by itself can do nothing) is also present. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 62

Diodorus of Tarsus: God is not unjust simply because he does not give everyone what they deserve. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Jerome: It is clear from this passage that the willing and running are ours, but the fulfillment of our willing and running belongs to the mercy of God. So it is that free will is preserved as far as our willing and running is concerned and that everything depends on the power of God as far as the fulfillment of our willing and running is concerned. — Against the Pelagians 1.5

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

As then in the one case, he means, some were saved and some were punished, so here also. This man was reserved for this very purpose. And then he again urges the objection. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: What he said, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” is to be taken as David also says in the Psalm: “Unless the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watches in vain that keeps it.” In which he shows, not that the one who builds the house does nothing and is idle, and that the Lord thus builds it; but rather that the man himself expends as much care and labor as lies in a man, while it belongs to God that, with all obstacles removed, the work should come to its accomplishment. Since, then, we are taught by this that man indeed expends labor and care, but God grants success and accomplishment to the work, it is surely pious and religious to attribute the sum even of that work which lies in man to God rather than to man. So also, when Paul was planting and Apollos watering, God is said to give the increase; and it is added: “So then neither he that plants is anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase.” Thus, then, we can say in the present passage also: and so neither he that runs is anything, nor he that wills, but God that gives the accomplishment. For he who wills, and he who runs, seem to be what he is who plants and he who waters; but the Apostle says that he who plants and he who waters are nothing: not that they do nothing, but that in comparison with God, who gives the increase or the accomplishment to the work, they are said to be nothing. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 9:17

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

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

Augustine of Hippo: We read in Exodus [10:1] that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief. Nor should it be thought that Pharaoh did not obey because he could not, on the ground that his heart had already been hardened. On the contrary, Pharaoh had deserved his hardness of heart by his earlier unbelief.For in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith which is the beginning of merit, so that they might do good works by the gift of God. And in those whom he condemns unbelief and unfaithfulness are the beginning of punishment, so that by that very punishment they are permitted to do what is evil. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 62

Oecumenius: God’s power is patience, and it is a very great power indeed. For who would not be overawed by the enormous patience of God? For he says that it is for this reason that he has agreed to let Pharaoh rule, that it may be shown how patient he is. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Origen of Alexandria: But let us also see of what sort is this which is said to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show in thee my power.” It is certain that God not only knows the purpose and will of each one, but even foreknows it. And knowing and foreknowing, as a good and just steward, he uses the impulses and purpose of each one for accomplishing those works which the mind and will of each one chooses. As if, for example, we should say: If a head of a household be wise and just, and have many servants, will he not, with all the shrewdness possible, consider which of them has a mind fit for tilling the field, and assign these to the field? and whose is fit for trading, whose also for tending the flock, whose indeed for personal service, and whose temperament he will approve as suited for keeping watch over his own bedchamber, and thus, being wise, assign each one to the duties that fit him? But since it is not hidden from him — whether he be a head of a household or a king — that it is necessary that at times his subjects rebel and break the laws of discipline, and on this account need correction and stripes, it is necessary therefore that he choose out of all those dispositions fit for this too, if there be any more fiercely stirred, which, though carried along by their own impulses, nevertheless confer the correction necessary for offenders. Let us suppose, then, that this head of a household, or this king, has seen the time at which those must be corrected who have committed many things against morals and discipline, and has chosen someone most savage, and much more savage than those very ones who are to be corrected, one who for his own crimes is now worthy not of correction but of death. And willing that his destruction should profit for the correction of the rest, he sends him to those whom he desires to be corrected by his death, and says to him: “For this very purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” For see that he did not say, “For this very purpose have I made thee” — otherwise the fault would seem to be referred to the Creator — but he says, “For this very purpose have I raised thee up”: that is, so that through the malice of your soul, which you acquired for yourself by living unbridled and without the fear of God, both a useful and fruitful correction may be inflicted upon others, and upon yourself a most notorious destruction may be brought as an example to posterity. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: And all these things were being carried out by the opposing powers at work against the teaching of Christ, reckoning that they could extinguish from the life of men the providence of God and faith concerning the resurrection of the Lord. And just as the excessive hardness of Pharaoh was not softened by the many wonders done through Moses, so, or even more, the hardness of the heart of these men was not only not bent by the signs and wonders done, but they did not even believe the guards reporting, “who came into the city and reported all things whatsoever had been done.” And to “Pharaoh” indeed it was said: “for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show in you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth,” but as for these, the magnanimity of God “bore with them,” “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” so that there might be “salvation among the Gentiles.” — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 145

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

Romans 9:18

Ambrosiaster: Here Paul assumes the role of an objector who makes these assumptions. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

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

Augustine of Hippo: He enables the one on whom he has mercy to do good, and he leaves the one whom he hardens to do evil. But that mercy is the result of the prior merit of faith, and that hardening is the fruit of prior unbelief, so that we do good deeds by the gift of God and evil deeds because of his punishment. Yet in either case free will is not taken away from man, whether it is to believe in God, so that mercy on us might follow, or to disbelieve in him, so that punishment on us might be the result. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 62

Augustine of Hippo: Why does the Father not teach all people in order that they might come to Christ, unless it is that all those whom he teaches, he teaches because of mercy, but those whom he does not teach, he does not teach because of judgment? — PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS 8.14

Augustine of Hippo: You must believe that the man whom God permits to go astray and to become hardened has deserved this evil, while in the case of the man upon whom he has mercy, you must acknowledge with an unswerving faith that this is a case of the grace of God, who is rendering not evil for evil but good for evil. — GRACE AND FREE WILL 23.45

John Chrysostom: “Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he then find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” See what pains he takes to embarrass the subject in every way. And the answer he does not produce forthwith, it being a useful thing not to do so, but he first stops the disputant’s mouth, saying as follows. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: But as for what he says, “Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens,” he seems to take it from what is written in Exodus. For there he says: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he may not let the people go.” Now Pharaoh’s heart was hardened in this way. God was unwilling to bring upon him a sudden and full vengeance. For although he was of consummate malice, nevertheless through his patience God had not shut off even from him the possibility of conversion: and therefore he uses upon him first lighter stripes, and then such as grow gradually heavier. But what God was doing through patience, by this the man was hardened unto contempt, storing up for himself a greater wrath, so that there may fitly be said to him that which the Apostle writes: “Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, not knowing that the patience of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and impenitent heart you treasure up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath.” Therefore God does not harden whom he wills, but he who has been unwilling to yield to his patience is hardened. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 9:19

Ambrosiaster: Paul teaches us first that nobody can resist God’s will because he is more powerful than anyone else. Next he teaches us that God is the Father of all and therefore does not want anyone to suffer evil. What God has made he wants to remain unharmed. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Having given his conclusion [in the last verse] Paul plays devil’s advocate by asking a rhetorical question.… He responds to this question in a sensible way so that we might understand that the basic rewards of faith and of unbelief are made plain only to spiritual people and not to those who live according to the earthly man. Likewise with the way God in his foreknowledge elects those who will believe and condemns unbelievers. He neither elects the ones because of their works nor condemns the others because of theirs, but he grants to the faith of the ones the ability to do good works and hardens the unbelief of the others by deserting them, so that they do evil. This understanding, as I have said, is given only to spiritual people and is very different from the wisdom of the flesh. Thus Paul counters his inquirer so that he may understand that he first must put away the man of clay in order to be worthy to investigate these things by the Spirit. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 62

Origen of Alexandria: It is superfluous, then, what you say to the Apostle, O you who oppose: “Why then does he still find fault? For who resists his will?” It is certain indeed that no one withstands the will of God; but it is fitting that we know his will to be just and right. For that we should be good or evil is a matter of our own will; but to what sort of stripes the evil man is destined, and to what sort of glory the good man, is a matter of God’s will. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Romans 9:20

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

Augustine of Hippo: As long as you are just a creature, says Paul, like this lump of clay, and you have not been led to spiritual things, so that as a spiritual man you might judge all things and be judged by no one, it is right for you to hold back from this kind of inquiry and not to answer back to God. For everyone who wants to know God’s plan ought first to be received into his friendship, and this is only possible for spiritual people who already bear the image of the heavenly. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 62

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

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

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

And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, “He couched, he lay down as a lion;” let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: “O man, who are you who answer back to God? Does the thing formed say to him who formed it: Why have you made me thus? Or does not the potter have power over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another indeed unto dishonor?” We read also in the Gospels that those who insolently and faithlessly inquired of the Lord by what power he did the things he was doing, and who had given him this power, were not held worthy even of an answer. Likewise in the present passage too we see the Apostle moved against insolent questions, and, through the things he answers, confounding the obstinacy of the one who puts them forward. For he says: “O man, who are you who answer back to God?” For man is to God what clay is to the potter. And just as, in the case of a worthless servant, if perhaps it seems to the master that some work ought to be done which is full of both reason and usefulness, but the servant, unwilling to work, begins to scrutinize what the master commands and to demand of his master: Why do you order this work to be done? Whom does it profit? For whom is it necessary? — what answer will be so fitting for such a contumacious servant as that it be said to him: “Who are you who answer back” to your master? So it pleases him; so it seems good to the master. But I do not think that if a faithful and prudent servant asks, wishing to understand and to marvel at his master’s wisdom, it would be said to him: “Who are you?” Indeed, when Daniel the prophet had desired to know the will of the Lord — whence also he was called “a man of desires” — it was not said to him: “Who are you?” but an angel was sent who might instruct him concerning all the dispensations and judgments of God. And we too, therefore, if we desire to know something of the secret and hidden things of God, if we are men of desires and not of contentions, let us faithfully and humbly seek out the judgments of God inserted rather secretly in the divine letters. For on this account also the Lord said: “Search the Scriptures,” knowing that these things are opened not to those who, occupied in other business, either hear or read them in passing, but to those who with an upright and simple heart, with unremitting labor and continual vigils, search the divine Scriptures more deeply — among whom I well know that I am not. Yet if there be anyone who seeks in this way, he will find. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: Such a rebuke does not refer to one who is faithful and lives a good and righteous life and has confidence towards God.… This rebuke is not for the faithful and the saints but for the unfaithful and the ungodly. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.1.22

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

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

Theodore of Mopsuestia: How can the thing which is made blame its Maker for the construction of its own nature? Everything must be content with its own nature, whatever that may be. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

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

Romans 9:21

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

Augustine of Hippo: As long as you are a potter’s vessel, you must first be broken by the iron rod of which it was said: “You will rule them with a rod of iron, and you will break them as a potter’s vessel.” Then, when the outer man is destroyed and the inner man is renewed, you will be able, rooted and grounded in love, to understand what is the length and breadth and height and depth, to know even the overwhelming knowledge of the love of God. So because from the same lump of clay God has made some vessels for noble use and others for ignoble, it is not for you, whoever you are who still lives according to this lump (that is, who are wise by the standards of earthly sense and the flesh), to dispute what God has decreed. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 62

Augustine of Hippo: First comes the clay which is fit only to be thrown away. We must begin with this but need not remain in it. Afterward comes what is fit for use, into which we can be gradually molded and in which, once molded, we can remain. This does not mean that everyone who is wicked will become good but that no one becomes good who was not once wicked. What is true is that the sooner a man makes a change in himself for the better, the sooner he has a right to be called what he has become. — City of God 15.1

Augustine of Hippo: Given that our nature sinned in paradise, we are now formed through a mortal begetting by the same divine providence, not according to heaven but according to earth, i. e., not according to the spirit but according to the flesh, and we have all become one mass of clay, i.e., a mass of sin. — QUESTIONS 68.3

Augustine of Hippo: If this lump of clay were of such indifferent value that it deserved nothing good any more than it deserved anything evil, there would be reason to see injustice in making of it a vessel unto dishonor. But when through the free will of the first man alone, condemnation extended to the whole lump of clay, it is undoubtedly true that if vessels are made of it unto honor, it is a question not of justice not forestalling grace, but of God’s mercy. If however, vessels are made of it unto dishonor, this is to be attributed to God’s justice, not to his injustice—a concept which can hardly exist with God! — LETTER 186

Augustine of Hippo: It would seem unjust that vessels of wrath should be made unto destruction if the whole lump of clay has not been condemned in Adam. The fact that men become vessels of wrath at birth is due to the penalty they deserve, but that they become vessels of mercy at their second birth is due to an undeserved grace. — LETTER 190

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

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

Origen of Alexandria: But let us also, according to our strength, turn to the things we have in hand. “Does the thing formed say,” he says, “to him who formed it: Why have you made me thus? Or does not the potter have power over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another indeed unto dishonor?” And in the prophet Jeremiah we read something of this sort, where he is commanded by God to go into the potter’s house and to see him forming: namely, gathering up again the vessel that had fallen from his hands, he formed it once more according to his own will. “And the word of the Lord came to him,” he says, “saying: Can I not do with the house of Israel as this potter does?” And Wisdom says: “The furnace tests the potter’s vessels, and temptation tests just men.” Our God, therefore, has power over us just as the potter has over the clay, to make out of the same lump vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor. For you, then, who insolently answer back to God, let it suffice to have heard these things. But whoever desires to behold the works of God’s wisdom in his dispensations, let him hear Paul, who was privy to the divine secrets, discoursing in another place about these very matters. “But in a great house,” he says, “there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of clay, and some indeed unto honor, but others unto dishonor. If therefore anyone shall cleanse himself from these, he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work.” Do you hear how, among those in whom Paul had no insolent contradictor, he disclosed the differences of the vessels? For there, where the hearer was not worthy but was a contradictor, he mentions only vessels of clay; but here he says there are also vessels of gold, and of silver, and of wood, and of clay: and some, he says, are unto honor, while others are made unto dishonor. Likewise also, where he recalled the reason why some are made unto honor and others unto dishonor: there he kept silent, here he disclosed it. “For if anyone shall cleanse himself,” he says, “from these” — without doubt from the filth of sin — “he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work.” It remains, therefore, that he who has not cleansed himself, and has not washed away the stains of sin through repentance, is a vessel unto dishonor. And if he should also increase his malice, and through hardness of mind and an impenitent heart utterly scorn to be converted, he will now be not only a vessel of dishonor, but also a vessel of wrath. Thus, then, the reason which he closes off there to those who demand it unworthily, he opens up here to those who desire it worthily: and through it that also which he set forth a little before concerning Jacob and Esau is more openly explained. For that Jacob might be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work, his soul had cleansed itself: and God, seeing his purity, and having power out of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor, made Jacob indeed — who, as we have said, had cleansed himself — a vessel unto honor; but Esau, whose soul he saw was not so pure nor so simple, he made out of the same lump a vessel unto dishonor. And that you may know that it was on account of the purity and simplicity of his soul that Jacob was made a vessel unto honor, hear what testimony of simplicity the divine Scripture bears to him. “And Jacob,” it says, “was a simple man, dwelling at home.” For this reason, therefore, the Apostle says concerning them that, before they were born, it is said of them: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: If both the saved and the lost come from one lump of clay, then the nature of their souls will be not different but the same. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.1.21

Tertullian: The vessel is the flesh, because it was made of clay by the breath of God, and only afterward was it clothed with the coat of skin. — ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH 8

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Whoever heard of a clay pot made for menial use blaming the potter for the way it was made and demanding to be remolded for some better purpose? — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

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

Romans 9:22

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

Augustine of Hippo: Paul has sufficiently demonstrated that the hardness of heart which came to Pharaoh came as the just deserts of his earlier unbelief. Yet God patiently endured his unbelief until the time came for him to mete out his punishment. God did this in order to correct those whom he had decided to set free from error and to lead them by calling them back to reverence and godliness, offering his aid to their prayers and sighings. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 63

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

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

For that it is not God’s wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul does not wish to appear powerful in this way (“not that we should appear approved,” he says, “but that ye should do that which is honest”), much less doth God. But after that he had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins but repented, He manifested His love toward man. — Homily on Romans 16

Oecumenius: Of course God is not subject to the passion of wrath. It is when he does what we do when we are angry that he calls it “wrath,” so that we will understand what he means. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Origen of Alexandria: We have often given warning about the Apostle’s unpolished modes of expression and their deficiencies, and this is found no less in the present passage. For what he says at the beginning of the chapter, “But if God, willing,” is not brought round to any conclusion. For instance, as he himself said elsewhere: “But if the first-fruits are holy, so also is the lump”: here he renders no such thing, but has left that conjunction hanging as it were; and even if it is not taken up, a clearer sense will be given without it — for instance, if we read it thus: “God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy.” In this the following seems to be understood: that while God bears with and patiently endures the unbelieving and the faithless, he makes known to men both his patience and his power — his patience, while he endures them long, in case they should perhaps come to their senses and be converted; his power, while at some point he punishes, and does not leave outrages altogether unavenged. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: And all these things were being carried out by the opposing powers at work against the teaching of Christ, reckoning that they could extinguish from the life of men the providence of God and faith concerning the resurrection of the Lord. And just as the excessive hardness of Pharaoh was not softened by the many wonders done through Moses, so, or even more, the hardness of the heart of these men was not only not bent by the signs and wonders done, but they did not even believe the guards reporting, “who came into the city and reported all things whatsoever had been done.” And to “Pharaoh” indeed it was said: “for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show in you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth,” but as for these, the magnanimity of God “bore with them,” “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” so that there might be “salvation among the Gentiles.” — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 145

Origen of Alexandria: Now, going back over it briefly, let us also seek out something concerning the inner meaning. How, then, does God make his wrath known? Through vessels, he says, of wrath fitted for destruction. I am myself astonished within myself when I contemplate the design of the Holy Spirit in the divine volumes. For he says that the wrath of God, which is foreign to his nature, is made known to men, as the present passage of the Apostle indicates; but his goodness and sweetness, which is proper to his nature, he records as being hidden and concealed, as David says: “How great is the abundance of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you.” What cause, then, shall we assign for God’s making his wrath manifest to men, and concealing his sweetness? Doubtless he knows that the race of men is frail and prone to falling through negligence, and that it is more expedient for them to be under the fear of wrath than to be let loose by the hope of God’s kindness and sweetness — as the Wisdom of God also says: “He who spares the rod hates his son. For if you strike him with the rod, he will not die: but you will save his soul from death.” God therefore makes his power known while he chastises and rebukes the impious, so that, according to the saying of Scripture, “when the pestilent man is scourged, the innocent becomes more shrewd.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

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

Romans 9:23

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

Augustine of Hippo: In giving to some what they did not deserve God obviously wanted his grace to be gratuitous and therefore genuinely grace, and in not giving it to all he showed what all deserved. He is good in the benefit given to certain people and just in the punishment of others but good in all things, for it is good when that which is deserved is given, and just in all things, as it is just when that which is not merited is given without injury to anyone. — GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE 12.28

Caesarius of Arles: We who were vessels of wrath through our first birth have deserved to become vessels of mercy through the second one. The first birth brought us forth unto death, but the second one recalled us to life. All of us were temples of the devil before baptism, but after baptism we were made ready to become temples of Christ. — SERMON 229

Origen of Alexandria: And again, “upon vessels of mercy” — that is, upon those who have cleansed themselves from every stain of sin, from which “no one is clean, not even if his life has been of a single day” — he makes known the riches of his glory: which vessels he prepared unto glory not by some unreasoning or fortuitous grace, but because they had themselves purged themselves of the aforesaid stains. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: And he also makes known “the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared unto glory.” The riches of God become known when his mercy is shown toward those who are despised among men and are lowly, who hope not in their own riches nor in their own power, but in the Lord. Just as at that time the nation of the Hebrews, despaired of among men and cast off, obtained mercy from God; so therefore now also the people of the Gentiles, who were despised and despaired of by those who glory in circumcision, has obtained mercy. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Romans 9:24

Ambrosiaster: God has called those whom he has prepared for glory, who he knew would persevere in faith, whether they are near at hand or far away. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: God did not call all the Jews but only some of them. Nor did he call all the Gentiles but only some of them. From Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and godless men, in which both Jews and Gentiles belong to one lump, apart from the grace of God. If the potter out of one lump of clay makes one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, it is clear that God has made of the Jews some vessels for honor and others for dishonor, and similarly of the Gentiles. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.19

Origen of Alexandria: But as to what he adds, “whom also he called, even us,” it stands for what he would have said thus: Just as we, whom he called “not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles.” For he seems to have pursued the preceding remarks as concerning Pharaoh, who was a vessel of wrath, and the children of Israel, who were vessels of mercy. Here, therefore, what he adds — “whom also he called, even us, not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles” — seems to take up a comparison: that is, so that it seems to be said thus: Just as we too are vessels of mercy, whom he called not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles. Let these things be said here so far as pertains to the order of the apostolic discourse itself and the explanation of the words. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Since even then some of the Egyptians left with the children of Israel … so too now God has called not only Jews but also Gentiles to faith. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:25

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

Augustine of Hippo: The gist of the entire argument leads to this conclusion. Paul taught that we do good by the mercy of God and that the Jews who had received the gospel should not glory in their works, thinking that they had deserved this and not wanting it to be given to the Gentiles. In Paul’s mind, the Jews should cease from such pride and understand that if we are called to faith not through our own works but by the mercy of God and if it is given to those who believe to do good, then they should not begrudge the Gentiles this mercy as if it had been given to the Jews on the ground of prior merit, which is nothing. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 64

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

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

John Chrysostom: “I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.” Here to prevent their saying, that you are deceiving us here with specious reasoning, he calls Hosea to witness, who crieth and saith, “I will call them My people, who were not My people.” Who then are the not-people? Plainly, the Gentiles. And who the not-beloved? The same again. However, he says, that they shall become at once people, and beloved, and sons of God. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: But this is what we ought to attend to more sharply: that those others also obtained mercy, and were called the people of God, and were beloved of God; but because they did not know how to keep the grace they had received, it is said to them: “In the things wherein the dwelling of Israel committed adultery, I put her away, and gave her the bill of divorce into her hands”; and again elsewhere: “You have become a surfeit to me, I will no longer forgive your sins.” And through Jeremiah the Lord says: “My inheritance has become to me like the cave of a hyena.” Lest perhaps we too, who were not the people of God, but through the riches of his glory he called us his people, and who were not beloved, but have been made beloved, and sons of the living God — if we do not walk as sons of light and sons of God, if we do not so act as the people of God, “that men, seeing our good works, may glorify our Father who is in heaven” — it is to be feared that we may incur that saying of the Apostle in which he says: “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. As he says in Hosea: I will call that which was not my people, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved; and her that had not obtained mercy, her that had obtained mercy. And it shall be: In the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there they shall be called sons of the living God.” This testimony, indeed, which the Apostle takes from Hosea, so far as pertains to the passage of the prophet itself, seems to be spoken not about the Gentiles, but about the people of Israel themselves. But, as we said above, Paul takes his example from a similar case, in order to show that, just as it was said to them once, when they had been cast off and despaired of, first: “You are not my people, and I am not your God”; and after this it is added: “And it shall be: In the place in which it was said to them, You are not my people, they too shall be called sons of the living God” — so, he says, also “we, whom he called not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles,” who before were not his people, now he has called us his people, “and her that was not beloved, beloved; and in the place where it was said” to us, “You are not my people, there they shall be called sons of the living God.” But perhaps those who are of the circumcision may inquire of us and say: Where indeed was it said to you that you are not the people of God, so that there you should be called sons of the living God? For they will assert that God spoke these things in Judaea (for in it alone is God known), and that these things have no bearing on us, because “the law speaks to those who are under the law.” Nay rather, I shall point out a place far more worthy, where it was both fitting and possible for God to speak. For God will not consistently be said to speak on mountains and crags and any earthly places whatever: but God speaks in the mind of man, in the rational faculty, and in the governing part of the heart; and there, when unworthy acts alien to God are censured by the conscience convicting them, there, I say, it is pronounced, there it is said to each individual, that “you are not my people.” But if anyone cleanses and purifies himself from these things, and “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding,” begins to guard his heart, there — that is, in the secret place of the heart — having been made peaceable, he will be called a son of God, with his conscience bearing witness. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: This passage originally applied to Jews, not to Gentiles.… It meant that God’s people would lose their status and be called “Not my people” and “Not beloved.” But then God promised that the rejected Jews would be called back again. Thus from having been God’s people and then rejected they would return.… The Gentiles, on the other hand, would become God’s people for the first time, having never been his people before. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 9:26

John Chrysostom: “For even they shall be called,” he says, “the children of the living God.” But if they should assert that this was said of those of the Jews who believed, even then the argument stands. For if with those who after so many benefits were hard-hearted and estranged, and had lost their being as a people, so great a change was wrought, what is there to prevent even those who were not estranged after being taken to Him, but were originally aliens, from being called, and, provided they obey, from being counted worthy of the same blessings? — Homily on Romans 16

Pelagius: Those who think that this is not Paul talking but the Jews interpret it to mean: “God saved as many as he wished, so that he chose even Gentile idolaters who had never served God, and called few from Israel, as Isaiah testifies.” — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:27

Ambrosiaster: But Isaiah cries out for Israel. This is what he says, that Isaiah cries out for those who believe in Christ (Isaiah 10:22). For these are truly Israelites, as the Lord says to Nathanael: Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no deceit (John 1:47).

If the number of the children of Israel is like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. When the Jews reject the deserving and promise of the fathers, they are the ones who do not receive it; these are the remnants, who persist in believing in the faith of the promise made to the fathers, having become faithful. For those who do not believe in the one whom the Law alone promised is sufficient for salvation, depart from the Law. Therefore, it is necessary that apostates, who do not receive Christ, be considered violators of the Law. Therefore, God says that only the believers from the greatest multitude will be saved, whom He foreknew. — Commentary on Romans

Augustine of Hippo: This shows that the Lord is the cornerstone, uniting both walls in himself. Hosea’s testimony is spoken of the Gentiles, but the Lord unites both Jews and Gentiles, according to what he said in the gospel about the latter: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 65

Augustine of Hippo: If by remnant … we are to understand not election of the justified to eternal life but election of those who are to be justified, that kind of election is truly hidden and cannot be known by us, who must regard all men as parts of a single lump of clay. If some claim to be able to know it, I must confess my own weakness in this matter. — TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.22

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

Do you see that he too does not say that all are to be saved, but that those that are worthy shall? For I regard not the multitude, he means, nor does a race diffused so far distress me, but those only do I save that yield themselves worthy of it. And he does not mention the “sand of the sea” without a reason, but to remind them of the ancient promise whereof they had made themselves unworthy. Why then are you troubled, as though the promise had failed, when all the Prophets show that it is not all that are to be saved? — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: After he had, through that wisdom of God which Paul speaks among the perfect, set forth the secret and hidden things of the divine dispensation, and had shown by what reasoning and in what order God either displays his wrath in the vessels of wrath or the riches of his glory in the vessels of mercy; and had taught that each one becomes a vessel of wrath from this, that by his own hardness and impenitent heart he treasures up for himself wrath in the day of wrath, while the vessels of mercy are those who have cleansed themselves from these things and have prepared themselves for every good work — now, in order to confirm these very things with greater authority, he teaches that they were prescribed also in the prophets: “Isaiah,” he says, “cries out on behalf of Israel: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” For the prophet, foreseeing things to come, saw that very many of Israel — and especially those who are compared to the sand of the sea — would through their own hardness and impenitent heart be “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,” not believing in their own life, but crucifying the Lord of majesty. “If therefore,” he says, “they be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” Those who are not saved are as the sand of the sea; but the remnant which shall be saved are as the stars of heaven. For the word of the promise which was made to Abraham contains both: “Your seed,” he says, “shall be as the sand of the sea, and as the stars of heaven.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Here Isaiah showed that only a few Jews would believe. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:28

Ambrosiaster: This has been done in Christ, who said: “Moses wrote about me.” — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: “He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness,” he says, “because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.” What he means then is somewhat of this sort. There is no need of fetching a circuit, and of trouble, and the vexation of the works of the Law, for the salvation is by a very short way. For such is faith, it holds salvation in a few short words. “For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Now you see what this, “the Lord shall make a short word upon earth,” is. And what is indeed wonderful is, that this short word carries with it not salvation only, but also righteousness. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: And this is what he says: “For he is completing and shortening the word in equity: because the Lord will make a shortened word upon the earth.” The word is shortened where many are called but few are chosen. And we may also call the word of the whole teaching “shortened,” in that what formerly the Law and the Prophets contained in the breadth of their precepts, the Lord, when he came, pronounced and said: “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with all your strength; and your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets” — in which he plainly shortened the Prophets and the Law into these two sayings. The “shortened word” can also be said to be the faith of the creed which is handed down to believers, in which the sum of the whole mystery is contained, bound together in few words. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

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

Romans 9:29

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

John Chrysostom: “And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and had been made like unto Gomorrha.” Here again he shows another thing, that not even those few were saved from their own resources. For they too would have perished, and met with Sodom’s fate, that is, they would have had to undergo utter destruction (for they of Sodom were also destroyed root and branch, and left not even the slightest remnant of themselves,) and they too, he means, would have been like these, unless God had used much kindness to them, and had saved them by faith. And this happened also in the case of the visible captivity, the majority having been taken away captive and perished, and some few only being saved. — Homily on Romans 16

Oecumenius: This may also be said of Christ, which is how Cyril of Alexandria interpreted it. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Origen of Alexandria: “And as Isaiah foretold,” he says, “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have become as Sodom, and should have been made like unto Gomorrah.” What seed does Isaiah say was left by the Lord? That, without doubt, which the same Apostle expounds elsewhere, when he says that it was said to Abraham: “To you will I give this land, and to your seed. He did not say: And to seeds, as in many; but, to your seed, as in one, which is Christ.” This, then, is what Isaiah says: “Unless the Lord had left us a seed” — that is, unless he had given us Christ, to be born from us — “we should have been as Sodom,” so far as concerns the magnitude of the impiety, except that something even graver was done among the Israelites. For the men of Sodom are recorded as unchaste and shameless toward their guests; but the people of Israel showed themselves sacrilegious toward him who, though he is the Lord of majesty, willed both to be called and to be their brother. Unless, therefore, the Lord had left that seed, through which a remnant might be saved and the vessels of mercy be saved, that people would have perished like Sodom. And yet it is not idly that Isaiah named what was left a “seed.” For that is called seed which is sown in the earth and yields manifold fruit: teaching by this that Christ too was to be sown, that is, to be buried in the earth, and rising thence to bring forth the most abundant fruit of the whole multitude of the Church, as the Lord himself also says: “Unless a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it bears no fruit; but if it die, it bears much fruit.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 9:30

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

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

Here at last is the clearest answer. For since he had used a proof as well from facts (“for they are not all Israel that are of Israel”) as from the case of the forefathers Jacob and Esau, and from the prophets Hosea and Isaiah, he further gives the most decisive answer, after first adding to the perplexity. The points discussed, then, are two; one that the Gentiles attained, and the other that they attained it without following after it, that is, without taking pains about it. And again in the Jews’ case also there are two difficulties of the same kind; one that Israel attained not, the other that, though they took pains, they attained not. Whence also his use of words is more emphatical. For he does not say that they had, but that they “attained to righteousness.” For what is especially new and unusual is, that they who followed after it attained not, but they which followed not after it attained. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have laid hold of righteousness — that righteousness, however, which is of faith.” Perhaps this may seem contrary either to those things we said above, that each one should cleanse and purge himself, that he may become a useful vessel and a vessel of mercy; or to those things we discussed earlier, that the Gentiles too make use of the natural law, in which without doubt righteousness also is contained. How then does he say here that the Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have laid hold of righteousness? See, then, whether we can answer in this way. It is one thing to pursue, another to have implanted. He is said to pursue who by teaching and much reading desires to attain something; whence also from “pursuing” (sectando) those teachings are called “sects” (sectae) which are learned by the tradition of men. The Gentiles, then, because they did not have the law so written on tablets or in books, are not said to have pursued righteousness; yet they had it implanted, which the natural law taught them. For that reason, therefore, they were near to that righteousness which is of faith, that is, to Christ. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 9:31

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

Origen of Alexandria: “But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law.” This passage too, as we said above must be observed, names “law” in different senses within one and the same verse. For it is certain that Israel pursued the law of righteousness according to the letter, but did not attain to the law. What law? Without doubt, that of the spirit. For the Apostle would not say this, that they did not attain to the law which they pursued and held and possessed. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Paul explains once again why the Jews did not find righteousness. Having wrongly gloried in their works they refused to believe and rejected grace on the ground that they were righteous already. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 9:32

Ambrosiaster: The Jews rejected faith, which as I have said is the fulfillment of the law, and instead claimed that they were justified by works, that is, by the sabbath, the new moons, circumcision and so on. They forgot that Scripture says that “the just shall live by faith.” — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Gennadius of Constantinople: Paul calls the Lord Christ a stumbling stone because those who did not accept the new covenant in him stumbled over him and by their unbelief fell from the grace of justification which was given to men through him. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

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

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

“For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: He gives, then, the reason why Israel could not attain to the law. “Because it was not of faith,” he says, “but as it were of works.” Concerning the faith of Christ and the works of the law we have discussed abundantly at the beginning of this Epistle; and therefore, lest we repeat the same things too often, let us explain the present passage with a few words of the Apostle himself, in which he says: “For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not been subject to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law, unto righteousness for everyone who believes.” Because, therefore, they pursued the law not according to the works of God’s righteousness, but according to the works of their own righteousness, therefore “they stumbled at the stone of stumbling, of which it is written: Behold, I place in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense: and he who has believed in him shall not be put to shame.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

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

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

Theodore of Mopsuestia: It is impossible to be justified by the works of the law because it would be necessary to keep the whole law, which is not possible. But anyone who sins (which is inevitable) lies under the judgment of the law. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 9:33

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

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

But the wonder in the Prophet is that he foretells not only that they should believe, but also that they should not believe. For to stumble is to disbelieve. As in the former passage he points out them that perish and them that are saved, where he says, “If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved.” And, “If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we should have been as Sodoma.” And, “He hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles;” so here too he implies that some will believe, and some will stumble. But stumbling comes of not taking heed, of gaping after other things. Since then they did give heed to the Law, they stumbled on the stone, “And a stone of stumbling and rock of offence” he calls it from the character and end of those that believe not. — Homily on Romans 16

Origen of Alexandria: But it should be known that in the prophet Isaiah this testimony is written thus: “Behold, I send into the foundations of Sion a precious stone, chosen, a cornerstone, glorious, into its foundations; and whoever shall believe in him shall not be put to shame.” The Apostle, however, inserted “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” into this testimony from another passage of the same prophet Isaiah, in which it is written thus: “And you shall not meet him as a stone of stumbling, nor as a stone of ruin”; and excerpting from both passages what seemed suitable to his assertions, he fitted them together. Nevertheless, since we find the Lord Jesus addressed by very many names — but good and salutary ones — it may perhaps seem strange why in this passage which the Apostle took from the prophet Isaiah he is named a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense; since surely to the good Lord and to the Son of the good Father whatever things are good and salutary ought to be applied: as peace, and righteousness, and truth, and the door by which one enters to the Father, and shepherd, and lion of the tribe of Judah, or lion’s whelp who is roused from sleep, or sanctification, or redemption, and other things of this sort which seem to befit his dignity. But see whether we can also show of “the stone of stumbling and rock of offense” how far it can fittingly be applied to him. “Stumbling” and “offense” (scandalum) signify nearly one and the same thing. For a “scandal” is so called when some obstacle is found in the road which impedes the step of one walking or climbing. From this, then, “scandal” is derived. Since therefore those who were in Sion, walking in ways that were not good, were running with hurried foot along the path of perdition, encouraging one another in their evils — as the Prophet says, because “the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul, and he who is wicked is blessed” — our Lord and Savior, when he came, began to reprove their ways and to say: “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees”; and again: “Woe to you rich”; and again: “Woe to you, Jerusalem, who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you.” But saying also many things like these, and reproving them, he began to impede their ways of perdition, and became to them a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, not allowing them to enter the broad way which leads to death. So finally it is written also in the prophet Hosea concerning those who walk the path of sin: “Because of this,” he says, “behold, I will hedge up her way with stakes, and I will block her ways, and she shall not find her path.” Let us set forth again, then, if it seems good, in our midst Paul himself, who, having once received letters from the priests, was proceeding to Damascus to bring all men and women who believed in Christ bound to Jerusalem. When therefore he was travelling that road of sin, the Lord Jesus met him on the way, and for a time struck him with blindness; and he became to him — so far as regards that very purpose for which he was going there — a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, so that he could not complete that journey of sin which he had undertaken, but being converted might believe in him who had shut off his way and blocked it with certain stakes of threatening; and believing in him, might not be put to shame. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Tertullian: It was fitting that the mystery of the passion should be set forth in predictions, for the more incredible it was, the more likely it was to have been a stumbling stone if it had been openly predicted. — AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS 10

Tertullian: Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed “for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence.” I omit the rest of the passage. — Against Marcion Book IV

Theodoret of Cyrus: People stumble when they stop paying attention to where they are going and look elsewhere. This is what happened to the Jews. Because they were so busy adding extras to the law, they failed to notice the stone which the prophets predicted. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS