Chapter 9 God’s Wrath and Mercy

Lecture 1 Paul’s love of the Jews

^9:1 I speak the truth in Christ: I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit: [n. 735]

735. Having shown the need and power of grace, the Apostle begins to discuss the origin of grace and ask whether it is conferred solely by God’s choice or from the merits of previous works. He raises this question because the Jews, seemingly called to God’s special protection, had fallen from grace; whereas the gentiles, previously alienated from God, had been admitted to it.

First, therefore, he discusses the election of the gentiles;

second, the fall of the Jews, at brethren, the will of my heart (Rom 10:1).

In regard to the first he does two things.

First, he recounts the greatness of the Jews;

second, he shows how the gentiles have been drawn into that greatness, at not as though the word of God has failed (Rom 9:6).

In regard to the first, he does two things.

First, the Apostle shows his affection for the Jewish people, lest anything he had said or was about to say against them should seem to proceed from hatred;

second, he shows their dignity, at who are Israelites.

Concerning the first he does two things.

First, he confirms what he was about to say;

second, he demonstrates his affection, at that I have great sadness.

736. Concerning the first he does two things.

First, he confirms what he is about to say with a simple assertion, I speak the truth, which especially befits the preacher who is a witness to the truth: my mouth will utter truth (Prov 8:7); love truth and peace (Zech 8:19).

And because a person sometimes mixes falsehood with the truth, he excludes this when he adds, I am not lying: putting away falsehood, let everyone speak the truth to his neighbor (Eph 4:25).

Second, he confirms what he is about to say with an oath, which is a confirmation supported by the testimony of infallible truth. Such are the witnesses of the saints. First, God himself, as it says in Job: my witness is in heaven (Job 16:19). Hence Paul says, in Christ, i.e., through Jesus Christ who is the truth without falsehood: the Son of God whom we preached among you was not yes and no (2 Cor 1:19). Second, the infallible witness of the saints is their conscience; hence he adds: my conscience bearing me witness: our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience (2 Cor 1:12). But because one’s conscience is sometimes erroneous unless it is corrected by the Holy Spirit, he adds: in the Holy Spirit: the Spirit himself gives testimony to our spirit (Rom 8:16).

^9:2 That I have great sadness and continual sorrow in my heart. [n. 737]

737. Then he shows his affection for the Jews by the pain he suffered from their fall, when he says, that I have great sadness.

First, he describes this pain;

second, he mentions a sign of it, when he says, for I wished myself.

738. He emphasizes how much pain he has suffered in three ways.

First by its magnitude: that I have great sadness, because it concerns a great evil, namely, the exclusion of such a great people: vast as the sea is your ruin (Lam 2:13).

But this seems to conflict with Sirach where it says, give not up your soul to sadness (Sir 30:22), which seems to agree with the opinion of the Stoics, who admitted no sadness at all in the soul of a wise man. For since sadness is a reaction to a present evil, it cannot exist in a wise man to whom no evil is present. For they supposed that virtue was the only good and sin the only evil.

But this opinion is refuted in two ways. First, because bodily defects, although they are not such evils as make men evil, are nevertheless among the evils which nature abhors. Hence, even the Lord is described as saddened by them: my soul is sorrowful, even to death (Matt 26:38).

Second, since charity requires that a person love his neighbor as himself, it is laudable for a wise man to grieve over a son of his neighbor as over his own. Hence the Apostle says: I fear that I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned (1Cor 12:2).

Thus, worldly sadness, which works death, springing from love of the world, is rejected, but sadness which is godly and springs from divine love works salvation (2 Cor 7:10). Such was Paul’s sadness.

Second, he emphasizes his grief by its duration, when he says, and continual sorrow; not that he never ceased to grieve actually, but habitually: that I might weep day and night for the slain of my people (Jer 9:1).

Third, he emphasizes how real it was when he says, in my heart; for it was not superficial but rooted in the heart: my eyes are spent in weeping and my heart is poured out in grief (Lam 2:11).

^9:3 For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, [n. 739]

739. Then he presents the sign of his sadness, saying, for I, who am so fervent in the love of Christ, as was shown above, wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren.

Here it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word formed by combining ana which means ‘above’ and thesis which means ‘placing,’ so that something placed above is said to be anathema. For when they found among the spoils of war something they did not wish men to use, they hung it in the temple. From this, the custom arose that things cut off from the common use of men were said to be anathema; hence, it says in Joshua: let this city be anathema, and all things that are in it, to the Lord (Josh 6:17).

740. He says, therefore: for I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, i.e., separated from him. One is separated from Christ in two ways.

In one way by a sin, through which one is separated from the love of Christ for not obeying his commandment: if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). But the Apostle could not wish to be separated from Christ in this way for any reason, as is clear from what was said above (Rom 8:35). For this is against the order of charity, by which a person is bound to love God above all things and his own salvation more than that of others. So he does not say, I wish, but, I wished, during his days of unbelief. But according to this explanation the Apostle is not saying anything great, because in those days he was willing to be separated from Christ even for himself. Hence, a Gloss explains that he says, I have great sadness, referring to the sorrow with which he grieved over his past state of sin, during which he willed to be separated from Christ.

In another way one can be separated from Christ, i.e., from the fruition of Christ possessed in glory.

This is the way the Apostle wished to be separated from Christ, for the salvation of the gentiles, not to mention the conversion of the Jews. For he says in Philippians: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account (Phil 1:23). This he now says: I wished, namely, if it were possible, to be an anathema, i.e., separated from glory either absolutely or temporarily from Christ’s honor, which would be enhanced by the conversion of the Jews, as it says in Proverbs: in the multitude of the people is the dignity of the king (Prov 14:28). Hence, Chrysostom says: love so ruled his mind that to please Christ he would not only sacrifice being with Christ, which he deemed more desirable than anything else, but also the kingdom of heaven, which would be the reward of his labor for Christ.

741. The cause of this attitude is shown when he says: for my brethren. Hence Sirach says: three things are approved before God and men: the concord of brethren, the love of neighbors, and a wife and husband who live in harmony (Sir 25:1). Then to show that he was not referring to those who were his spiritual brethren in Christ, he adds: and all you are brethren, adding who are my kinsmen according to the flesh: are they descendants of Abraham? So am I (2 Cor 11:22).

^9:4 Who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption of sons and the glory and the testament and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises, [n. 742]

742. Then, when he says who are Israelites, he shows the greatness of the Jews in order that his sadness appear reasonable on account of the ancient dignity of a deteriorating people, for it is a weightier evil to lose greatness than never to have possessed it, as the Gloss says, and not as though it arose solely from worldly love.

743. But he shows their greatness in three ways.

First, from their race when he says, who are Israelites, i.e., descending from the stock of Jacob who was called Israel (Gen 32:28). This pertains to their greatness, for it is said: neither is there any nation so great as to have their gods coming to them (Deut 4:7).

744. Second, he shows the greatness of that race from God’s blessings: first, the spiritual blessings, one of which refers to the present: to whom belongs the adoption of sons of God. Hence it says in Exodus: Israel is my son, my firstborn (Exod 4:22). This refers to the spiritual men who arose among that people: but as to worldly men he stated above that they received the spirit of slavery in fear (Rom 8:15). Another spiritual blessing refers to the future when he says, the glory, namely, of the sons of God promised to them. A reference to this is found in Exodus: the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Exod 40:32).

Then he sets out other, figural benefits, of which three are figures of present spiritual benefit. The first of these is the testament, i.e., the pact of circumcision given to Abraham, as is recorded in Genesis 17, although this could be referred to the new covenant preached first to the Jews. Hence, the Lord himself said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24); and Jeremiah: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel (Jer 31:31). The second is the law given through Moses; hence, he continues: the giving of the law: Moses commanded a law to us (Sir 24:33). The third is divine worship when he says: the service with which they served God, when all the other nations were serving idols: but now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen (Isa 44:1).

Then he mentions the blessing which pertains to future glory when he says: and the promises. For the promises made in the Old Testament and fulfilled by Christ seem made especially to the Jews; hence he says below: I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs (Rom 15:8). Now many other promises were made to them about earthly goods, as is recorded in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 18, but by these temporal goods spiritual things were prefigured.

^9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever. Amen. [n. 745]

745. Third, he describes the Jews’ dignity by their origin, when he says, whose fathers, because they were begotten according to the flesh by those ancestors who were especially acceptable to God: I love your fathers and chose their descendants after them (Deut 4:37); like the first fruit on the fig tree I saw their fathers (Hos 9:1).

746. Fourth, he shows their greatness from a descendant when he says, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh who says: salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22).

747. Then to prevent this from being underestimated he shows the greatness of Christ, saying: who is over all things, God blessed forever. Amen: this is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20).

In these words four heresies are refuted: first, Manichean, which held that Christ had not a true but imaginary body. This is refuted when he says, according to the flesh. For he has true flesh, as it says in Luke: a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have (Luke 24:39).

Second, Valentinus’ heresy which claims that Christ’s body was not taken from the human line but brought from heaven. This is excluded when he says that Christ was from the Jews according to the flesh, in keeping with Matthew: the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt 1:1).

Third, the heresy of Nestorius according to whom the Son of man was other than the Son of God. Against this the Apostle says here that whose fathers and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God.

Fourth, the Arian heresy, which claimed that Christ was less than the Father and created from nothing. Against the first he says that he is over all things; against the second that he is blessed forever. For it is true of God alone that his goodness remains forever.

Lecture 2 The sons of the promise

^9:6 Not as though the word of God has failed. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. [n. 748]

748. After asserting the greatness of the Jews, the Apostle now shows that it did not refer to those who descended according to the flesh from the ancient patriarchs but to the spiritual progeny chosen by God.

First, he shows that this greatness arises from God’s selection;

second, that this selection applies generally to Jew and gentiles, at even us, whom also he has called (Rom 9:24).

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he shows how from God’s choice men obtain spiritual greatness;

second, he raises a question about the justice of God’s choice, at what shall we say then? (Rom 9:14).

In regard to the first he does two things:

First, he states his proposition;

second, shows it, at but in Isaac.

Concerning the first, he does two things.

First he sets out the firmness of the divine election;

second, he shows in whom it is accomplished, at for all are not Israelites.

749. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the promises, the adoption of sons, and glory referred to people whose fall is to me a source of great sadness and unceasing sorrow. But it is not as though the word of God has failed, i.e., was frustrated, because although it has found no place in those who had fallen, it has a place in others: the word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose (Isa 55:11); forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed (Ps 119:89).

750. Then he shows how and in whom God’s word has failed, when he says for all are not Israelites.

In regard to this it should be noted that the Jews boasted mainly of two things, namely, Abraham, who first received the pact of circumcision from God (Gen 17) and Jacob or Israel, all of whose descendants were counted as God’s people. This was not true of Isaac, for the descendants of his son Esau did not belong to God’s people.

Hence the Apostle states his proposition: first, by a comparison with Jacob: for all are not Israelites who are of Israel, i.e., from Jacob according to the flesh, are true Israelites, to whom God’s promises belong, but those who are upright and see God by faith: fear not, Jacob, and thus most just whom I have chosen (Isa 44:2). Hence the Lord also said to Nathanael: behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile (John 1:47). Now this name, Israel, had been put on Jacob by an angel (Gen 32:28).

Second, he states the same things by comparison with Abraham, saying: neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, sons, i.e., are not the spiritual sons of Abraham to whom God promised the blessings, but only those who imitate his faith and works: if you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did (John 8:40).

^9:7 Neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, sons: but in Isaac will your seed be called. [n. 751]

751. Then he clarifies his statement, at but in Isaac.

First, in regard to Abraham;

second, in regard to Jacob, at and not only she.

752. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying, but in Isaac will your seed be called. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Genesis 21, when describing the expulsion of Ishmael.

As if to say: not all who were born from Abraham according to the flesh belong to that seed to whom the promises were made, as it says in Galatains: to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed (Gal 3:16), but those who are like Isaac.

^9:8 That is to say, not they who are the sons of the flesh are the children of God: but they who are the sons of the promise are accounted for the seed. [n. 753]

753. Then he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis, when he says that is to say, not they who are the sons.

To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Galatians: Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave, namely, Ishmael, was born according to the flesh (Gal 4:22), because he was born according to the law and custom of the flesh from a young woman: the son of the free woman, namely, Isaac, through promise and not according to the flesh, i.e., not according to the law and custom of the flesh, because he was born from a sterile, old woman (Gen 18:10); although he was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the substance of the flesh he received from his parents.

From this the Apostle decides that those adopted into the sonship of God are not the sons of the flesh, i.e., not because they are the bodily descendants of Abraham, but they are accounted for the seed, to whom was made the promise, who are the sons of the promise, i.e., those who are made sons of Abraham because they imitate his faith, as it says in Matthew: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt 3:9). Thus, Ishmael, born according to the flesh, was not numbered among the seed, but Isaac, born by the promise, was.

^9:9 For this is the word of promise: according to this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. [n. 754]

754. Third, at for this is the word of promise, he proves that his explanation is valid, when he says that the children of the promise are the ones signified by Isaac, namely, because Isaac was born as the result of a promise.

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

^9:10 And not only she, but Rebecca also had conceived at once from Isaac our father. [n. 755]

755. Then he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob, when he says and not only she.

First, he states his intention;

second, he clarifies his position, at for when the children were not yet born.

756. First, therefore, he says: and not only she, namely, Sarah, begot a son about whom the promise was made, but when Rebecca also, having in her womb two sons, one of whom pertained to the promise and the other only to the flesh, had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For it says in Genesis: Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, and the Lord gave her conception, but the children struggled together within her (Gen 25:21ff.).

And it should be noted that the Apostle cites this against the Jews who supposed that they would obtain justice through the merits of their forefathers, which is contrary to what is said about just men, namely, that they will deliver neither sons nor daughters but they alone will be delivered (Ezek 14:18). This is why John said to the Jews: do not presume to say: we have Abraham as our father (Matt 3:9). Paul, therefore, counters this opinion by reminding them that of Abraham’s children one was chosen and the other rejected.

But he could have ascribed this difference to the mothers, because Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman, or to the changed meriting state of the father; because while uncircumcised he begot Ishmael but circumcised he begot Isaac. To exclude any such subterfuge, therefore, he cites the case where one is chosen and the other rejected, even though both were born of the same father and the same mother at the same time and, indeed, from one coition.

^9:11 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand), [n. 757]

757. Then he clarifies his thesis, when he says for when the children were not yet born:

first, by the authority of Genesis (Gen 25:24);

second, by a text from the prophet Malachi, at as it is written.

758. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when the children were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other in virtue of the promise.

And just as his previous statement excluded the opinion of the Jews trusting in the merits of their forefathers, so this statement counters the error of the Manicheans who claimed that a person’s life and death were controlled by the constellation under which he was born, against what is said in Jeremiah: be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear (Jer 10:2).

Then when he continues: nor had done any good or evil, the Pelagian error is refuted which says that grace is given according to one’s preceding merits, even though it says in Titus: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy (Titus 3:5).

Both of these are shown false by the fact that before birth and before doing anything one of Rebecca’s sons is preferred to the other.

This also corrects Origen’s error who supposed that men’s souls were created when the angels were, and that they merited different lives depending on the merits they earned for the good or evil they had done there. This could not be true in the light of what is stated here, namely that for when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil. Against this also is Job: where were you when the morning stars praised me together and all the sons of God made joyful melody? (Job 38:7). For according to Origen’s error, he could have answered: I was among those joyful sons of God.

759. Second, he shows what could be understood from that promise by which one of the twins in the womb was chosen over the other. He says: in order that God’s purpose, by which one would be greater than the other, might stand, i.e., be made firm: and this not by reason of merits but according to election, i.e., inasmuch as God himself spontaneously forechose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy, as it says in Ephesians: he chose us in himself before the foundation of the world that we should be holy (Eph 1:4). But this is a decree of predestination about which the same text says: predestined according to the purpose of his will (Eph 1:15).

^9:12 Not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her: the elder shall serve the younger. [n. 760]

760. Third, he sets down the promise, saying, not of works, for no works preceded it, as has been said: but of him who calls, i.e., through the grace of God calling, for it was said to her, i.e., Rebecca, that the elder, i.e., Esau, shall serve the younger, i.e., Jacob. This can be understood in three ways.

761. In one way, as referring to the persons involved, and then Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, inasmuch as the persecution he launched against him ended in Jacob’s benefit, as it says in Proverbs: the fool will serve the wise (Prov 11:29).

Second, it can be referred to the people who sprang from each, because the Edomites were once subject to the Israelites, as it says in a psalm: upon Edom I cast my shoe (Ps 60:8). This seems to fit Genesis: the nations are in your womb; the one shall be stronger than the other (Gen 25:23).

Third, it can be taken figuratively so that by the elder is understood the Jewish people, who were the first to receive the adoption of sons, in accord with Exodus, Israel is my firstborn son (Exod 4:22), and by the younger is understood the gentiles, who were called to the Father later and were signified by the prodigal son (Luke 15).

The elder people in this case serve the younger, inasmuch as the Jews are our capsarii (slaves who carried boys’ satchels to school), guarding the books from which the truths of our faith are drawn: search the Scriptures (John 5:39).

^9:13 As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated. [n. 762]

762. Then he proves his point when he says as it is written, by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

A Gloss on this says that the statement, the elder shall serve the younger, was spoken from foreknowledge, but that the present statement results from judgment, i.e., that God loved Jacob on account of his good works, just as he loves all the saints: I love those who love me (Prov 8:17), but he hated Esau on account of his sins: the Highest hates sinners (Eccl 12:7).

But because man’s love is preceded by God’s love: not that we loved God, but that he has first loved us (1 John 4:20), we must say that Jacob was loved by God before he loved God. Nor can it be said that God began to love him at a fixed point in time; otherwise his love would be changeable.

Consequently, one must say that God loved Jacob from all eternity, as it says in Jeremiah: I have loved you with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3).

763. Now these words of the Apostle identify in God three things pertaining to the saints, namely, election, by which is understood God’s predestination and election. In God these are really the same, but in our understanding they differ. For it is called God’s love, inasmuch as he wills good to a person absolutely; it is election, inasmuch as through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. But it is called predestination, inasmuch as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions predestination comes after love, just as the will’s fixation on the end naturally precedes the process of directing things toward the end.

Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in man. For in men, election precedes love, for a man’s will is inclined to love a thing on account of the good perceived in it, this good also being the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixed his love on the thing he preferred. But God’s love is the cause of every good found in a creature; consequently, the good in virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows upon God’s willing it—which pertains to his love. Consequently, it is not in virtue of some good which he selects in a man that God loves him; rather, it is because he loved him that he prefers him to someone by election.

764. But just as the love, about which we are speaking, pertains to God’s eternal predestination, so the hatred about which we are speaking pertains to the rejection by which God rejects sinners.

It should not be supposed that this rejection is temporal, because nothing in the divine will is temporal; rather, it is eternal. Furthermore, it is akin to love or predestination in one respect and different in another.

It is akin in the sense that just as predestination is preparation for glory, so rejection is preparation for punishment: for a burning place has long been prepared, yes, for the king it is made ready (Isa 30:33).

It is different in that predestination implies preparation of the merits by which glory is reached, but rejection implies preparation of the sins by which punishment is reached. Consequently, a foreknowledge of merits cannot be the reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be a reason for rejection on the part of the punishment prepared for the rejected, inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for the sins they have from themselves, not from God; the just he proposes to reward on account of the merits they do not have from themselves: destruction is your own, O Israel; your help is only in me (Hos 13:9).

Lecture 3 Justice of God’s election

^9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? [n. 765] God forbid! [n. 768]

765. After showing that by God’s choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling, the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice.

First, he raises a question;

second, he answers it, at God forbid! For he says to Moses;

third, he objects against the solution, at you will say therefore to me: why does he still complain?

766. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that God chose one and rejected the other without any preceding merit. What shall we say then? Does this enable us to prove that there is injustice on God’s part?

It seems so. For it pertains to justice that things be dispensed equally to equals. But when differences arising from merit are removed, men are equal. Therefore, if without consideration of merits God dispensed unequally by choosing one and rejecting the other, it seems that there is injustice to him; contrary to what is said in Deuteronomy: God is faithful and without any iniquity (Deut 32:4); righteous are you, O Lord, and right are your judgments (Ps 119:137).

767. It should be noted that Origen fell into error trying to solve this objection.

For he says in his Periarchon that from the beginning God made only spiritual creatures and all were equal, lest he be charged with injustice for any inequality; later, differences among these creatures arose from differences of merit. For some of those spiritual creatures were turned to God by love, some more and some less; on this basis the various orders of angels were distinguished. Others turned from God, some more and some less; on this basis they were bound to bodies, either noble or lowly; some to heavenly bodies, some to bodies of demons, some to bodies of men. Accordingly, the reason for making and distinguishing bodily creatures is the sin of spiritual creatures. But this is against what is said in Genesis: God saw everything which he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31), which gives us to understand that goodness was the cause of producing bodily creatures, as Augustine says in The City of God.

768. Therefore, we must set aside this opinion and see how the Apostle solves the problem when he says, God forbid!

In regard to this he does two things.

First, he solves the problem with respect to choosing the saints;

second, with respect to hating and rejecting the wicked, at for the Scripture says.

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he proposes the scriptural text from which the solution comes;

second, he draws the conclusion from it, at so then it is not of him.

769. The text he adduces is from Exodus where the Lord said to Moses: I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me (Exod 33:19). But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: for the Lord says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I show mercy. The meaning is that all our blessings are ascribed to God’s mercy, as it says in Isaiah: I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things the Lord has bestowed upon us; and: the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed (Isa 63:7); because his commiserations have not failed (Lam 3:22).

770. The text Paul cites is explained in two ways in a Gloss, so that it solves the question and the objection in two ways.

First, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., on him who is worthy of mercy. To amplify this he repeats: I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, i.e., on whom I judge worthy of compassion, as it says in a psalm: the Lord has compassion on those who fear him (Ps 103:13).

It follows from this that although he imparts his blessings from mercy, he is nevertheless excused from injustice; for he gives to those who should be given to and does not give to one who should not be given to, according to the correctness of his judgment.

771. But having mercy on one who is worthy can be understood in two ways: in one way so that one is counted worthy of mercy on account of preexisting works in this life, though not in another life, as Origen supposed. This belongs to the Pelagian heresy which taught that God’s grace is given to men according to their merits.

But this cannot stand, because, as has been stated, the good merits themselves are from God and are the effects of predestination.

772. But there is another way in which one is considered worthy of mercy, not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits subsequent to grace; for example, if God gives a person grace and he planned from eternity to give him that grace which he foresaw would be used well.

According to this the Gloss is saying that he has mercy on him who should be given mercy. Hence he says: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., by calling and bestowing grace, I will have mercy on him to whom I know beforehand that I will show mercy, knowing that he will be converted and abide with me.

But it seems that not even this is a suitable explanation.

For it is clear that nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for a predestination, even if it be taken as existing in God’s foreknowledge, because the reason for a predestination is presupposed to the predestination, whereas the effect is included in it.

But every benefit God bestows on a man for his salvation is an effect of predestination. Furthermore, God’s benefits extend not only to the infusion of grace, by which a man is made righteous, but also to its use, just as in natural things God not only causes their forms but also all the movements and activities of those forms, inasmuch as God is the source of all movement in such a way that when he ceases to act, no movement or activity proceeds from those forms. But sanctifying grace and the accompanying virtues in the soul are related to their use as a natural form is related to its activity. Hence, it is said: O Lord, you have wrought for us all our works (Isa 26:12).

773. Aristotle proves this in a particular way when he discusses the works of the human will.

For since man is open to opposites, say to sitting or not sitting, it must be resolved by something else. But this is done by deliberation, which is followed by choosing one over the other. But again, since man has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, it will be necessary that something move him to deliberate. But since this does not proceed infinitely, there must be some external principal superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle is none other than God.

In this way, then, the very use of grace is from God. But this does not mean that sanctifying grace is superfluous, any more than natural forms are superfluous, even though God works in all, as it is said: wisdom orders all things sweetly (Wis 8:1), because through their forms all things are inclined spontaneously, as it were, to that to which they are ordered by God.

Consequently, it is impossible that the merits which follow grace are the reason for showing mercy or for predestination; the only reason is God’s will, according to which he mercifully delivers certain ones.

For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wages, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither.

For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by his grace he delivers by his mercy alone; and so he is merciful to those whom he delivers, just to those whom he does not deliver, but unjust to none.

Thus, the Apostle solves the question with a text which ascribes all to divine mercy.

774. Yet it should be noted that God’s mercy is viewed according to three aspects: first, according to predestination by which he proposed from all eternity to deliver certain ones: the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps 103:17); second, according to his calling and justifying, by which he saves men in time: he saved us in his mercy (Titus 3:5); third, according to the bestowal of glory, when he frees from all misery: who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy (Ps 103:4).

Therefore, he says: I will have mercy, namely, by calling and justifying, on whom I have mercy by predestining and having compassion and finally by crowning with glory him on whom I have mercy by calling and justifying.

This interpretation is more in keeping with the version before me: I will be gracious to whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me where divine mercy is clearly ascribed not to merits but solely to the divine will.

^9:15 For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.

^9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. [n. 775]

775. Then he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited, when he says so then it is not of him.

This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one way thus: so a man’s salvation is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action, which running is spoken of in 1 Corinthians: so run that you may obtain (1 Cor 9:25); but of God who shows mercy, i.e., it proceeds from the sole mercy of God. What follows from the authority cited is found in Deuteronomy: do not say in your heart: it is because of my justice that the Lord has brought me into this land (Deut 9:4).

776. But it can be understood in another sense: all things proceed from God’s mercy; so then it is not of him who wills to will nor of him who runs to exert oneself, but of God who shows mercy, as it says in 1 Corinthians: it was not I but the grace of God which is with me (1 Cor 15:10), and in John: without me you can do nothing (John 15:5).

777. But if this is all that is understood in this word, since even grace without man’s free judgment does not will or strive, he could have said the converse, namely, it does not depend on God’s mercy but on man’s will or exertion, which is offensive to pious ears.

Consequently, something more must be understood from these words, if first place is to be given to God’s grace.

For an action is attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary, as when we say that the hammer does not make the box but the carpenter by using the hammer. But man’s will is moved to good by God, as it says above: all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom 8:14); therefore, an inward action of man is not to be attributed principally to man but to God: it is God who of his good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13).

778. But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will.

But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover.

^9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: to this purpose have I raised you, that I may show my power in you and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. [n. 779]

779. Then he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked, when he says for the Scripture says.

First, he quotes an authority;

second, he draws the conclusion, at therefore he has mercy on whom he wills.

780. He says, therefore: it has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity. But neither is there injustice in rejecting the wicked from all eternity. For out of God’s mouth the Scripture says: to this purpose have I raised you, or according to another rendition: I have preserved you for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. But our letter has: and on that account I stationed you, that I might show my strength in you, that my name may be related in the whole earth.

781. The first point to notice here is what God does in regard to the rejected. He shows this when he says: to this purpose have I raised you, i.e., you had deserved to die for the evils you had done: those who do such things deserve to die (Rom 1:32), but I did not call you to die at once; rather I preserved you in life for this purpose, namely, of showing my power in you.

This interpretation can also be obtained from the version which reads: have I raised you, i.e., although before me you deserved to be dead, I granted you life, as if I had raised you up. From this it appears that God works no injustice against the rejected, since they deserved to be destroyed at once for their crimes; rather, the fact that he preserves their life proceeds from his exceeding goodness: correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment; and not in your fury, lest you bring me to nothing (Jer 10:24).

Another interpretation is this, have I raised you for sin, that you might become worse. This should not be understood as though God causes sin in man; rather, it should be understood in a permissive sense, namely, that from his just judgment he permits some to fall into sin on account of previous sins, as it says above: God gave them up to a base mind (Rom 1:28).

But it seems to me that still more must be understood here, namely, that men are moved to good and to evil by God through an inward prompting. Hence, Augustine says in his book On Grace and Free Will that God works in men’s hearts to incline their wills whithersoever he wills, either to good through his mercy or to evil according to their deserts. Thus, God is said very often to stir up men to do good, as it says in Daniel: the Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young boy (Dan 13:45). He is also said to raise up others to do evil, as in Isaiah: I will stir up the Medes against them and with their arrows they shall kill the children (Isa 13:1).

However, he stirs them to good and to evil in different ways: for he inclines men’s wills to good directly as the author of these good deeds; but he is said to incline or stir up men to evil as an occasional cause, namely, inasmuch as God puts before a person, either in him or outside of him something which of itself is conducive to good but which through his own malice he uses for evil: do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath (Rom 2:4–5) and God gave his place for penance: and he abused it unto pride (Job 24:23).

Similarly, as far as in him lies, God enlightens a man inwardly to good, say a king to defend the rights of his kingdom or to punish rebels. But he abuses this good impulse according to the malice of his heart. This is plain in Isaiah where it is said of Assyria: against a godless nation I send him and against the people of my wrath I command him to take spoil and seize plunder (Isa 10:6), and further on: but he does not so intend, and his mind does not so think, but it is in his mind to destroy. That is the way it happened with Pharaoh, who, when he was prompted by God to defend his kingdom, abused this suggestion and practiced cruelty.

782. Second, there is need to consider the purpose behind God’s doing certain things and permitting certain things.

For one must remember that God works in creatures to manifest himself, as it says in Romans: his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:20); hence these promptings are ordained to this manifestation both for those present, for the very purpose of showing my power in you, and Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians (Exod 14:3), and for those absent, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. Declare his glory among the gentiles (Ps 95:3).

Thus, it is clear that in this matter there in no injustice in God, because he uses his creature according to its merits for his glory. And it can be interpreted in the same sense if it be said have I raised you, i.e., I have ordered your malice to my glory; for God orders the malice, but does not cause it.

^9:18 Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills. And he hardens whom he wills. [n. 783]

783. Then when he says, therefore, he has mercy on whom he wills, he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited. From the statement I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, he concludes: therefore he has mercy upon whom he wills: the Lord has mercy on them that fear him (Ps 103:11); from the text, have I raised you, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills: you have hardened our heart, so that we fear you not (Isa 3:17); some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them has he cursed and brought low (Sir 33:12).

There seems to be no difficulty about God’s mercy, once we grant what has been said above.

784. But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening.

First, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sirach: a hard heart shall fear evil at the last (Sir 3:27). Consequently, if God hardens the heart, he is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in James: God is no tempter to evil (Jas 1:13).

The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though he causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace.

785. The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: this is the will of God, your sanctification (1 Thess 4:3) and he desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just.

Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy on whom he wills through his mercy and he hardens whom he wills through his justice, because those whom he hardens deserve to be hardened by him, as was stated above (Rom 1).

Lecture 4 Vessels of wrath and of mercy

^9:19 You will say therefore to me: why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?

^9:20 O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it: why have you made me thus? [n. 788]

786. Having solved the question proposed, the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills (Rom 9:18).

First, he places the objection;

second, the solution, at O man, who are you.

787. First, therefore, he says: we have said that God has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills. You will say therefore to me: why does he still find fault? i.e., what need is there to inquire any further into the cause of the good and evil done here, since all things are attributed to the divine will, which is a sufficient cause, since no one can resist him? Hence he continues: for who resists his will? I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven (Eccl 1:13).

Or in another way: why does he still find fault? i.e., why does God complain about men when they sin, as in Isaiah: some have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me (Isa 1:2). Therefore, he does not seem to have a just complaint, because it all proceeds from his will, which no one can resist. Hence he adds: who resists his will?

Or still another way: why does he still find fault, i.e., why is man still required to do good and avoid evil: he has showed you, O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and love mercy and walk with your God? (Mic 6:8). For it is useless to require of someone that which is not in his power. But nothing seems to lie in man’s power, according to the above, in which all things seem ascribed to the divine will, which cannot be resisted. He adds: for who resists his will? As if to say: no one. There is none that can resist your will (Esth 13:11). And this seems to be the Apostle’s meaning.

788. Then he answers the question, at O man, who are you.

To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does he will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one?

Although a reason other than God’s will can be assigned in the first question, the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God’s absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top and others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the top and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed.

First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why he has mercy on this one and hardens that one;

second, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why he is merciful to some and hardens others, at what if God.

In regard to the first he does three things.

First, he censures the questioner’s presumption;

second, he cites an authority which solves the question, at shall the thing formed say to him who formed it;

third, he explains the authority, at or has not the potter power.

789. First, therefore, he says: O man, who are you, fragile and unknowing, who replies against God? How would you answer him, if he were to contend with you in judgment? If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times (Job 9:3). Again, as it says in Job: he who argues with God, let him answer him (Job 39:30).

In this we are given to understand that man should not examine the reason for God’s judgments with the intention of comprehending them, for they exceed human reason: seek not the things that are too high for you (Sir 3:22); he that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27).

790. Then, when he says shall the thing formed, he cites the authority of Isaiah: shall the thing made say of its maker, he did not make me? (Isa 29:16).

Here it should be noted that if an artisan uses base matter to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all ascribed to the goodness of the artisan; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving-dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such base matter, say clay, he produced a vessel adapted to meaner uses, for example, for cooking or such, the vessel, if it could think, would have no complaint. But it could complain, if from precious metals, such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses.

But human nature has baseness about it from its matter, because as Genesis says: God formed man of dust from the ground (Gen 2:7), and more baseness after being spoiled by sin, which entered this world through one man. That is why man is compared to dirt, in Job: I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes (Job 30:19). Hence, any good that man possesses is due to God’s goodness as its basic source: O Lord, you are our Father, we are the clay, and you are the potter, we are all the work of your hands (Isa 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance man to better things but leaves him in his weakness and reserves him for the lowliest use, he does him no injury such that he could justly complain about God.

^9:21 Or has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? [n. 791]

791. Then the Apostle explains the words of the prophet, when he says or has not the potter power.

As if to say what is molded, i.e., the vessel, should not say to the potter: why have you made me thus? because the potter is free to make anything he wishes out of the clay. Hence he says: or has not the potter power over the clay, to make without any injury to it, of the same lump of base matter one vessel unto honor, i.e., for honorable use and another unto dishonor, i.e., for meaner uses: in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. (2 Tim 2:20).

In the same way God has free power to make from the same spoiled matter of the human race, as from clay, and without any injustice some men prepared for glory and some abandoned in wretchedness: behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel (Jer 18:6).

792. Then, when he says what if God, willing, he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others.

Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works is the manifestation of divine goodness: the Lord has made all things for himself (Prov 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:20).

But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which he is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom his justice is manifested with regard to those he punishes according to their deserts and his mercy in those he delivers by his grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in man he mercifully delivers some, but not all.

First, therefore, he gives an account of the rejections of the wicked; second, of the election of the good, at that he might show the riches.

^9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, [n. 793]

793. In both cases three differences should be considered.

First, with respect to the end; second, with respect to use; third, with respect to the divine act.

Now the end of the rejection or hardening of the wicked is the manifestation of divine justice and power. Referring to this he says: what, i.e., but, if God, willing to show his wrath, i.e., retaliatory justice. For wrath is said of God not as an emotion but as the effect of retaliation: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven (Rom 1:18). Then he adds: and to make his power known, because God not only uses wrath, i.e., retribution, by punishing those subject to him, but also by subjecting them to himself by his power: according to his work by which he can subject all things to himself (Phil 3:21); and they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them (Exod 14:31).

The use which God makes of the wicked is wrath, i.e., punishment. And this is why he calls them vessels of wrath, i.e., instruments of justice that God uses to show wrath, i.e., retributive justice: we were by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3).

But God’s action toward them is not that he disposes them to evil, since they of themselves have a disposition to evil from the corruption of the first sin. Hence he says fitted for destruction, i.e., having in themselves a disposition toward eternal condemnation: God saw that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times (Gen 6:5). The only thing God does concerning them is that he lets them do what they want. Hence not without meaning does he say endured. And the fact that he does not exact retribution immediately shows his patience; so he adds with much patience: the Most High is a patient rewarder (Sir 5:4).

794. Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things.

First, the end, when he says that he might show the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory. And this is the meaning of that he might show the riches of his glory, the riches concerning which he said above: or do you despise the riches of his goodness? (Rom 2:4). God who is rich in mercy (Eph 2:4).

And it is significant that he says that he might show the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and reprobation of the wicked, carried out in accord with God’s justice, makes known and highlights the glory of the saints, who were freed from such misery as this.

Second, he describes their use, when he says on the vessels of mercy. He names them vessels of mercy because God uses them as instruments to show his mercy: these were men of mercy (Sir 44:10).

Third, he sets out God’s action in their regard. For God does not merely endure them, as though they were of themselves disposed to the good, but rather he prepares and disposes them by calling them to glory. Hence he says which he has prepared unto glory: preparing the mountains by your power (Ps 64:7).

795. Even to this point the Apostle uses an incomplete and suspensive construction, so that the meaning is: if God wants to do this, to have mercy on some and harden others, what can justly be said against it? As though to imply: nothing. For he does not will to harden them in such a way that he compels them to sin, but rather he endures them so that they may tend to evil by their own inclination.

^9:23 That he might show the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he has prepared unto glory?

Lecture 5 Election both of Jews and gentiles

^9:24 Even us, whom he also has called, not only of the Jews but also of the gentiles. [n. 796]

796. After showing that God’s grace is given to men as a result of God’s election through which men are called to grace, the Apostle shows that such election or calling applies not only to the Jews—as if they could boast on account of what is said in Deuteronomy: he loved your fathers (Deut 4:37)—but also to the gentiles.

First, he states the intended proposition;

second, he proves it, at as in Hosea he says;

third, he draws the conclusion, at what then shall we say?

797. First, therefore, he says: we have stated that God prepared the saints for glory, whom he also has called, namely, by his grace, not only of the Jews but also of the gentiles: is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also? (Rom 3:29); they shall adore him, every man from his own place, all the islands of the gentiles (Zeph 2:11).

^9:25 As in Hosea he says: I will call those who were not my people, my people; and her who was not beloved, beloved; and her who had not obtained mercy, one who has obtained mercy. [n. 798]

798. Then he proves the proposition, when he says as in Hosea he says:

first, with respect to the gentiles;

second, the Jews, at and Isaiah cried out.

In regard to the first he cites two texts from Hosea speaking for the gentiles: the first of these promises them God’s gifts;

the second, divine sonship, at and it shall be in the place where it was said unto them.

799. First, therefore, he says: as the Lord says in Hosea, because it was he who spoke in the prophets: the Spirit of the Lord spoke through me, his word is upon my tongue (2 Sam 23:2). Hence, too, it says in Hosea: when the Lord first spoke through Hosea (Hos 1:2).

Here it should be noted that the gentiles were cut off from three blessings for which the Jews were famous: first, divine sonship, by reason of which they were called the people of God, as though serving him and obeying his precepts: we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his herd (Ps 95:7). But the gentiles were alienated from the society of this people, as it says in Ephesians: alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise (Eph 2:12). However, through Christ they have become God’s people: he gave himself for us to purify for himself a people of his own (Titus 2:14). And that is what he says: I will call those who were not my people, i.e., the gentiles, my people, i.e., that they be my people.

The second is the privilege of divine love: the Lord loves the people of Israel (Hos 3:1), because he offered them many benefits leading to special graces. From this love the gentiles had formerly been excluded: alienated from God’s truth because of the ignorance that is in them (Eph 3:18). Hence, he says: and her who was not beloved, i.e., the gentile races, I will call my beloved. You who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13); while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Rom 5:10).

The third is deliverance from original sin through circumcision: the Lord will have compassion on Jacob (Isa 14:1). But the gentiles had no share in this compassion: on the day you were born your navel string was not out and no eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you (Exod 16:5). But later through Christ they obtained compassion. Similarly it follows: and her who had not obtained mercy, one who has obtained mercy. He saved us in virtue of his own mercy (Titus 3:5).

He cites this text from Hosea according to the Septuagint, in the place where our text has: I will have mercy on her who was without mercy, and I will say to not my people: you are my people (Hos 2:23).

^9:26And it shall be in the place where it was said unto them: you are not my people; there they shall be called the sons of the living God. [n. 800]

800. Then, when he says and it shall be in the place, he cites another text from Hosea in which they are promised the dignity of being sons of God (Hos 1:10), about which the Jews boasted because, as it says in Isaiah: sons have I reared and brought up (Isa 1:2) and in Deuteronomy: is he not your father? (Deut 32:6).

For the gentiles not only were not called sons, which applies to those who serve God out of love and are led by the Spirit of God (Rom 8:14); they were not even worthy to be called the people of God, which could apply at least to those who had received the spirit of servitude in fear.

Hence, he says, and it shall be in the place, i.e., in Judea, where it was said unto them, i.e., to the gentiles by the Jews speaking as though in God’s person: you are not my people, because they did not consider them God’s people, there, i.e., even among the believing Jews, they shall be called the sons of the living God.

Or in the place, i.e., in the entire world where they will be converted to the faith. This would indicate that they would not be converted in the same way as proselytes, who would leave their native land and journey to Judea. That this would not happen in the case of those converted to Christ is shown in Zephaniah: to him they shall bow down, each in his own place (Zeph 2:11). Therefore, to each one living in his own place, where it was said to them in former times, you are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God by divine adoption: to all who believed in his name, he gave them power to become children of God (John 1:12).

^9:27 And Isaiah cried out concerning Israel: if the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. [n. 801]

801. Then, when he says Isaiah cried out, he proves his proposition with respect to the Jews and presents two texts from Isaiah.

The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe;

the second particularly to the apostles, at and Isaiah foretold.

802. First, therefore, he says: we have indicated what Hosea said about the gentiles, but Isaiah cried out, i.e., clearly speaks about the conversion of Israel: cry, cease not, lift up your voice like a trumpet (Isa 58:1).

In this first citation he first shows how few will be converted from Israel, saying: if the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, i.e., innumerable in light of the multitude of nations: I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore (Gen 22:17); Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea (1 Sam 4:20), a remnant shall be saved, i.e., not all, not the majority, but a certain few who will be left after the pruning: I am become as one who gleans in autumn the grapes of the vintage (Mic 7:1); at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace (Rom 11:5).

^9:28For he shall finish his word and cut it short in equity: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth. [n. 803]

803. Second, at for he shall finish his word, he cites the cause of salvation: first, the efficacy of the word of the Gospel, saying: for he shall finish his word and cut it short in equity.

Note here a twofold efficacy of the evangelical word. The first is that the word is fulfilling, i.e., perfective: the law made nothing perfect (Heb 7:19); but the Lord says, I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill (Matt 5:17), because he applied the truth to the figures of the law, explained the moral precepts of the law properly, removed occasions for transgressing them and even added counsels of perfection. Thus he said to the young man who had kept all the precepts of the law: one thing is lacking to you. If you would be perfect, go and sell what you possess and give to the poor (Matt 19:21). For this reason he said to his disciples: you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48).

The second efficacy is that the word is cut short. This is suitably joined to the first efficacy, because the more perfect a word is the more profound it is and, as a consequence, simpler and briefer. Now the word of the Gospel shortens the words of the law, because it included all the figurative sacrifices of the law in one true sacrifice, in which Christ offered himself as a victim for us (Eph 5:2). Furthermore, it includes all the moral precepts of the law in the two precepts of charity: on these two precepts depend the law and the prophets (Matt 22:40).

Hence he says cut short in equity, either because nothing is omitted of the multitude of figures and precepts of the law, but all are included in the brevity of the Gospel; or because nothing remains of them to be observed but what is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason: all your commands are equitable (Ps 118:72). This should be understood so that the sense is: the word of the Gospel will shorten and perfect in equity.

804. Second, when he says because a short word, he gives the reason for this efficacy, saying, for the Lord upon the earth, i.e., when he lives on earth as man: afterwards he was seen upon earth and conversed with men (Bar 3:38), will make a short word.

For the word which the Lord himself spoke in the flesh should be more perfect and powerful than the words he spoke through the prophets, as it says in Hebrews: God, who, at sundry time and in diverse manners, spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son (Heb 1:1).

805. Or, in another way: for the Lord, i.e., God the Father, will make a short word, i.e., incarnate, because the Son of God emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. He is called brief, not because anything was subtracted from the fullness or greatness of his divinity, but because he underwent our exile and smallness.

This decree is considered, however, in Isaiah, where according to our account it is thus said: for if your people, O Israel, shall be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them shall be converted. The abridged consumption shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, and an abridgment in the midst of all the land (Isa 10:22–23).

^9:29 And as Isaiah foretold: unless the Lord of the Sabbath had left us a seed, we would have been made as Sodom and been made like Gomorrha. [n. 806]

806. Then, when he says and as Isaiah foretold, he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the apostles, saying: and as Isaiah foretold: unless the Lord of the Sabbaoth, that is, of armies or power, had left us, namely, in his mercy, a seed, i.e., the word of the Gospel: the seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11); or a seed, i.e., Christ; and to your seed which is Christ (Gal 3:16); or a seed, i.e., the apostles: that which shall stand therein shall be a holy seed (Isa 6:13), we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.

For the sin of the Jews was greater than that of the men of Sodom: the iniquity of my people has been greater than the sin of Sodom (Lam 4:6) and your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done (Ezek 16:48).

Consequently, it was an act of divine mercy that the Jews were not totally exterminated as were the Sodomites: the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed (Lam 3:22).

^9:30 What then shall we say? That the gentiles who did not follow after justice have attained to justice, even the justice that is of faith. [n. 807]

807. Then he draws the conclusion from the above, when he says what then shall we say?

First, with respect to the gentiles;

second, with respect to the Jews, at but Israel.

808. In regard to the first he does two things.

First, he draws his conclusion, saying: what then shall we say, in the light of the foregoing? I say it is this, namely, that the gentiles have attained it, i.e., justice, by which they are called sons: and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were justified (1 Cor 6:11). And this, indeed, from God’s calling and not from any merits, because he says, the gentiles who did not follow justice. At that time you were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12).

Second, he explains what he calls justice that is of faith, i.e., not that which consists in works. For the gentiles were not converted in order to observe the justice of the law, but to be justified through faith in Christ: the justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ upon all who believe (Rom 3:22).

^9:31 But Israel, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. [n. 809]

809. Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion as regards the Jews.

And first he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, i.e., the people of the Jews, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice.

The law of justice is the law of the spirit of life through which men are made just and which the Jewish people did not attain, although they pursued it by observing the shadow of this spiritual law: the law has but a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1). Or by following after the law of justice, i.e., the law of Moses, which is the law of justice, if it is well understood, because it teaches justice.

Or it is called the law of justice, because it does not make men truly, but only outwardly, righteous, as long as sins are avoided not from love but from fear of the punishment that the law inflicted: hearken to me, you who pursue that which is just and you who seek the Lord (Isa 51:1); hearken to me, you who know what is just, my people, who have my law in your heart (Isa 51:7).

^9:32 Why so? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works. For they stumbled at the stumbling stone. [n. 810]

810. Second, he assigns the cause, saying, why is it that although they observed the law, they did not fulfill the law? Because they did not observe the law in the proper way.

And this is what he says: because they sought it not by faith, i.e., they sought to be made just not through faith in Christ but as it were of works. For they followed the figure and repudiated the truth: for by the works of the law no human being shall be justified before him (Rom 3:20).

811. Third, he explains the cause assigned: first, he presents the explanation, saying, they have stumbled at the stumbling-stone, i.e., Christ, who is likened to a stumbling-stone; for just as a stone against which a man stumbles is not guarded against because it is small, so the Jews, seeing Christ clothed with our weakness, did not guard against stumbling over him: his look was as it were hidden and despised. Whereupon we esteemed him not (Isa 53:3); before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains (Jer 13:16), i.e., upon Christ and his apostles who are called dark mountains, because their great dignity is hidden.

^9:33 As it is written: behold I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of scandal. And whosoever believes in him shall not be confounded. [n. 812]

812. Second, he cites an authority for this, saying: as it is written, namely, in Isaiah. Here the Apostle gathers together the words of Isaiah found in various places. For it says in Isaiah: behold, I will lay a stone in the foundations of Zion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation (Isa 28:16). From this he takes the first part of his quotation: behold, I lay in Zion a stone, i.e., as a foundation, by which is meant that by divine command Christ was established as the foundation of the Church: for no other foundation can anyone lay that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11).

Again it says in Isaiah: he shall be for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel (Isa 8:14). He uses this in the middle of the quotation where he says: a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall. Here the stumbling refers to their ignorance, because it says in 1 Corinthians: if they had known this, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8); but the falling refers to their unbelief by reason of which they persecuted Christ and his apostles: we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews (1 Cor 1:23); behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel (Luke 2:34).

The end of the quotation is taken from Isaiah: he who believes, let him not hasten (Isa 28:16). In place of this he says, and whosoever believes in him shall not be confounded, namely, because he will receive a reward from him: you who fears the Lord, hope in him: and your reward shall not be made void (Sir 2:8).

The Apostle takes these words according to the Septuagint. Its sense pertains to what is in our text: he who believes, let him not hasten, for he seems to hasten, who considers himself deceived, because he does not quickly get what he hoped.

Pashi bar ughodd-band korMagisterium AIMagisterium AI

Magisterium AI

Chodd vapr ani vaisistya khatir bhitor sor

Commentary on Romans

Magisterium AI
Magisterium AI