Commentary on Romans (Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos Lectura)

Above, the Apostle demonstrated the necessity and power of grace; here he begins to treat of the origin of grace — whether it is given from God's election alone, or is given from the merits of preceding works — the occasion being taken from the fact that the Jews, who seemed bound over to the divine services, had fallen away from grace, while the Gentiles, who had previously been strangers to God, had been admitted to it. First, therefore, he treats of the election of the Gentiles; second, of the fall of the Jews, in chapter 10: "Brothers, the will of my heart indeed...," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he calls to mind the dignity of the Jews; second he shows how the Gentiles were taken up into that dignity, at the words "But it is not that it has failed." Concerning the first he does two things. First the Apostle shows his affection toward the Jewish people, lest what he has said or is about to say against them should seem to be said out of hatred; second he shows their dignity, at the words "who are Israelites," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he confirms the things he is about to say; second he demonstrates his affection, at the words "because to me there is sorrow." Concerning the first he does two things. First he confirms what is to be said by a simple assertion, saying "I speak the truth," which is especially fitting for a preacher, who is a witness of the truth. Proverbs 8:7: "My throat shall meditate truth." Zechariah 8:19: "Love ye peace and truth." And because sometimes someone inserts some lie into the truth he speaks, to exclude this he adds "I lie not." Ephesians 4:25: "Putting away lying, speak ye the truth."

Second, he confirms what is to be said by an oath, which is a certain confirmation through the testimony of infallible truth. Such, indeed, are the witnesses of the saints. First indeed God, according to Job 16:20: "Behold, my witness is in heaven." And therefore he says "in Christ Jesus," that is, through Christ Jesus, who is the truth without lie. 2 Corinthians 1:19: "For the Son of God, who was preached among you, was not in him yes and no." Second, the infallible witness of the saints is their conscience, hence he adds "my conscience bearing me witness." 2 Corinthians 1:12: "This is our glory, the testimony of our conscience." And because at times conscience errs, unless it is set right by the Holy Spirit, he adds "in the Holy Spirit." Above, 8:16: "The Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit."

Then, when he says "because there is sorrow," etc., he shows his affection toward the Jews through the sorrow he suffered over their fall — which he first explains, and second sets down a sign of it, when he says "I wished," etc.

Now he intensifies his sorrow in three ways. First, indeed, from its magnitude: "because to me there is great sorrow," since, namely, it concerns a great evil, that is, the ruin of so great a people. Lamentations 2:13: "Great as the sea is thy destruction." But against this seems to be what is said in Ecclesiasticus 30:22: "Give not sadness to thy soul" — which seems to be in accord with the opinion of the Stoics, who altogether banished sorrow from the mind of the wise man. For since sorrow concerns a present evil, it cannot belong to the wise man, to whom no evil is present; for they did not reckon anything to be good except what is honorable, nor anything evil except sin.

But this opinion is refuted in two ways. First, indeed, because bodily defects, although they are not simply evils — namely, evils by which men are made evil — are nevertheless certain evils which nature abhors; hence the Lord too is read to have been made sorrowful on account of these things, Matthew 26:38: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." Second, since out of charity a man ought to love his neighbor as himself, a praiseworthy sorrow is incumbent upon the wise man over the sin of his neighbor just as over his own sin; hence the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 12:21: "and that I may mourn many of them that have sinned." Thus, then, the sorrow of the world, which worketh death, proceeding from the love of the world, is condemned; but the sorrow which is according to God, as proceeding from divine charity, worketh salvation, as is said in 2 Corinthians 7:10. And such was this sorrow.

Second, he intensifies it from its continuity; hence he adds "and continual sorrow" — not that he grieved by a continuous act, but according to habit. Jeremiah 9:1: "That I may weep day and night for the slain of my people."

Third, he intensifies it from its genuineness, and says "in my heart"; for it was not superficial, but rooted in the heart. Lamentations 1:22: "Many are my groans and my heart is mourning."

Then, when he says "For I wished," etc., he sets down a sign of his sorrow, saying: "For I myself wished" — I who am so fervent in the charity of Christ, as was shown above — "to be anathema from Christ for my brethren." Here, first, it should be known that "anathema" is a Greek word, composed of "ana," which means "upward," and "thesis," which means "a placing," so that "anathema" is said as it were "placed up on high" — because, namely, when something was taken in plunder which they did not want to be in the use of men, they would hang it up in the temple. And it has grown into custom even to this day that things which are set apart from the common use of men are called "anathemas"; hence it is said in Joshua 6:17: "Let this city be an anathema, and all things that are in it, to the Lord."

He says, therefore, "I myself wished to be anathema from Christ," that is, separated from him — which indeed happens in two ways. In one way, through fault, by which someone is separated from the charity of Christ, not keeping his commandment. John 14:15: "If you love me, keep my commandments." But in this way the Apostle could not wish to be anathema from Christ for any cause whatsoever, as is clear from what was said above at 8:35. For this is against the order of charity, by which one is bound to love God above all things, and his own salvation more than the salvation of others. And therefore he does not say "I wish" but "I wished," namely, at the time of unbelief. But according to this the Apostle says nothing great, because at that time too he wished to be separated from Christ on his own account. Hence a certain Gloss also explains what he says, "great sorrow is to me," as referring to the sorrow by which he grieved over his past state of sin, in which he had wished to be separated from Christ.

In another way someone can be separated from Christ, that is, from the enjoyment of Christ which is had in glory. In this way, then, the Apostle was willing to be separated from Christ for the salvation of the Gentiles, let alone for the conversion of the Jews, according to Philippians 1:23f.: "Having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better; but to abide still in the flesh is needful for you." And in this way he said "I wished" — namely, if it could be done — "to be anathema," that is, separated from glory, either simply or for a time, for the honor of Christ, which comes from the conversion of the Jews, according to Proverbs 14:28: "In the multitude of people is the dignity of the king." Hence Chrysostom says in the book On Compunction of Heart: "Love so conquered his whole mind, that even that which, before all other things, was most lovable — namely, to be with Christ — this same thing he would in turn disdain, because it would so please Christ; but he would likewise allow even the kingdoms of heaven, which seemed to be the reward of his labors for Christ, nonetheless to be yielded up."

And he shows the cause of so great an affection by adding "for my brethren." Hence it is said in Ecclesiasticus 25:1f. that three things are approved before God and men: "the concord of brethren," etc. And lest this be understood of those who were spiritually brethren in Christ, according to Matthew 23:8: "All you are brethren," he adds "who are my kinsmen according to the flesh." 2 Corinthians 11:22: "They are the seed of Abraham: so am I."

Then, when he says "who are Israelites," he shows the dignity of the Jews, so that his sorrow might appear to be reasonable on account of the former dignity of the people that was perishing — for it is a more grievous evil, as the Gloss says, to have lost one's dignity than never to have had it — and not proceeding solely from carnal affection.

Now he shows their dignity in three ways. First, indeed, as to their own race, when he says "who are Israelites," that is, descended from the race of Jacob, who was called Israel, Genesis 32:28, and 2 Corinthians 11:22: "They are Israelites: so am I." And this pertains to dignity. For it is said in Deuteronomy 4:7: "There is not another nation so great," etc.

Second, he shows the dignity of that people from the benefits of God, among which he first sets down the spiritual benefits, one of which regards the present; and as to this he says, "whose is the adoption of the sons of God"; hence it is said in Exodus 4:22: "Israel is my firstborn." And this indeed is said with regard to the spiritual men who were in that people. But as to the carnal, he indicated above, at 8:15, that they received the spirit of servitude in fear. But another benefit he sets down which regards the future, when he says "and the glory," namely, the glory of the sons of God promised to them. As a sign of this, it is read in the last chapter of Exodus that "the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle."

Then he sets down other figural benefits, three of which are a figure of the present spiritual benefit. And the first of these is "the testament," that is, the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham, as is said in Genesis 17:2 — although this could be referred to the New Testament, which was first preached to the Jews. Hence the Lord also said, Matthew 15:24: "I was not sent but to the sheep that are perished of the house of Israel." And it is said in Jeremiah 31:31: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel."

The second is the law given to Moses; hence he also adds "the giving of the law." Ecclesiasticus 24:33: "Moses commanded us a law."

The third is the divine worship, when he says "and the service," namely, that by which they served God, while all other nations served idols. Isaiah 44:1: "And now hear, O Jacob my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen."

Then he sets down what pertains to future glory, when he says "and the promises." For the promises made in the Old Testament, fulfilled through Christ, seem to have been made especially to the Jews. Hence it is said below, 15:8: "I say that Jesus Christ was minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," etc. Now many promises were made to them concerning earthly goods, as is clear from Leviticus 26:3f., and Deuteronomy 28:1-14. But through those temporal goods, spiritual goods were figured.

Third, he describes the dignity of the Jews from their origin, when he says "whose are the fathers," since, namely, according to the flesh they were begotten from those fathers who were most acceptable to God. Deuteronomy 4:37: "I loved thy fathers, and I chose their seed." Hosea 9:10: "As the first fruits of its fig tree, I saw their fathers."

Fourth, he shows their dignity from their offspring, when he says "of whom is Christ according to the flesh," as he himself says. John 4:22: "Salvation is of the Jews." And lest this seem too little, he shows the dignity of Christ, saying: "Who is over all things, God blessed forever, amen." 1 John, last chapter: "This is the true God and life eternal."

In these words four heresies are destroyed. First, indeed, that of the Manichaeans, who said that Christ had a phantasmal and not a true body — which he removes by what he says, "according to the flesh." For he has true flesh, according to Luke, last chapter: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." Second, the heresy of Valentinus, who says that Christ did not take his body from the mass of the human race, but brought it from heaven. This indeed he excludes by what he says, that Christ is from the Jews according to the flesh, according to Matthew 1:1: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David." Third, the heresy of Nestorius, who held that the son of man was one and the son of God another; against him the Apostle here says that he who is from the fathers according to the flesh is the very one who is God over all things. Fourth, the heresy of Arius is excluded, who said that Christ was less than the Father and that he was created out of nothing. Against the first of these he says that he is "over all things"; against the second, that he is "blessed forever" — through all ages. For this is to be said of God alone: that his goodness endures forever.

After the Apostle has set forth the dignity of the Jews, he now shows that this dignity does not belong to those who proceeded carnally from the ancient fathers, but to the spiritual seed which is elected by God. And first he shows that a dignity of this kind arises from divine election; second he shows that this election belongs commonly to Jews and to Gentiles, at the place "whom he also called, not only," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows how, from divine election, men attain spiritual dignity; second he raises the question of the justice of divine election, at the place "What then shall we say?" Concerning the first he does two things. First he proposes what he intends; second he shows what he has proposed, at the place "but in Isaac," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the firmness of divine election; second he shows in whom it is fulfilled, at the place "for not all," etc.

He says therefore first: thus it has been said that theirs are the promises and the adoption of sons and the glory, for whose fall there is great sadness to me and continual sorrow. But this is not to be understood in such a way that the word of God has fallen away — that is, been made void — because even if it does not have a place in certain ones who have fallen away, it nevertheless has a place in others. Isaiah 55:11: the word which goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, etc. Psalm 118:89: forever, O Lord, your word endures.

Then when he says "for not," etc., he shows how and in whom the word of God has fallen away. Concerning which it must be considered that the Jews gloried especially in two things, namely in Abraham, who first received the covenant of circumcision from the Lord, as is said in Genesis 17:10, and in Jacob or Israel, whose entire posterity was numbered among the people of God. But it was not so with Isaac; for the posterity of his son Esau did not belong to the people of God.

Hence the Apostle shows his proposition, first indeed by comparison to Jacob, saying: for not all who are of Israel — that is, begotten from Jacob according to the flesh — these are the true Israelites to whom the promises of God belong, but those who are upright and seeing God through faith. Isaiah 44:2: most upright, whom I have chosen. Hence also the Lord said to Nathanael, John 1:47: behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. But this name Israel was imposed on Jacob by the Angel, as is evident in Genesis 32:28.

Second he shows the same thing by comparison to Abraham, saying: neither are all who are the carnal seed of Abraham the spiritual sons of Abraham to whom God promised the blessing, but only those who imitate his faith and works. John 8:39: if you are the sons of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.

Then, when he says "but in Isaac," etc., he makes his proposition manifest. And first as regards Abraham; second as regards Jacob, at the place "and not only she," etc.

Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth the authority of Scripture, saying: but in Isaac shall your seed be called. This the Lord said to Abraham, as is found in Genesis 21:12, where it was dealing with the expulsion of Ishmael. As if he were to say: not all who were born carnally from Abraham belong to that seed to which the promise was made, according to Galatians 3:16: to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed — but those who are like Isaac.

Then, when he says "that is, not the children who," etc., he expounds the authority he has adduced insofar as it bears on his proposition. For evidence of which it must be taken up what the Apostle says in Galatians 4:22ff: Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman; but he who was by the slave woman, namely Ishmael, was born according to the flesh — namely because he was born from a young woman according to the law and custom of the flesh; but he who was by the free woman, namely Isaac, was born through the promise, and not according to the flesh — that is, not according to the law and custom of the flesh, because he was born from a sterile and aged woman, as is found in Genesis 18:10 — although he was born according to the flesh, that is, according to the substance of flesh which he received from his parents. From which the Apostle here takes it that those are not adopted as sons of God who are children of the flesh — that is, from this very fact that they are begotten from Abraham according to the flesh — but those are reckoned in the seed to whom the promise was made, who are children of the promise, that is, those who, from the grace of the divine promise, have been made children of Abraham according to the imitation of faith, according to Matthew 3:9: God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham. Just as also Ishmael, born according to the flesh, was not reckoned in the seed, but Isaac, born through the promise, was.

Third, at the place "for this is the word of promise," etc., he proves that his exposition was fitting, by which he said that through Isaac are signified those who are children of the promise, namely because Isaac was born through the promise. Hence he says: for this is the word of promise — this is the word that the Angel, or rather the Lord in the Angel, said to Abraham in Genesis 18:10: at this time I will come, by which is signified the time of grace. Galatians 4:4: when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son. And there shall be a son for Sarah, namely through the grace of the promise. Hence also in Galatians 4:5 it is said: that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Then, when he says "and not only she," etc., he makes his proposition manifest as regards Jacob. And first he sets down what he intends; second he makes his proposition manifest, at the place "for when they were not yet born," etc.

He says therefore first: not only she, namely Sarah, had a son of whom the promise was made, but also Rebecca, having in her womb two sons, of whom one belonged to the promise, the other to the flesh alone — and this from one act of intercourse of Isaac our father. For it is said in Genesis 25:21ff that Isaac prayed for his wife because she was sterile, and the Lord granted conception to Rebecca, but the little ones struggled together in her womb.

And it must be noted that the Apostle brings this in against the Jews, who reckoned that they would obtain the righteousness of God on account of the merits of the fathers — against whom it is said of the just men in Ezekiel 14:16, that they will not deliver son and daughter, but they themselves will be delivered by their own righteousness. Hence also John said to the Jews, Matthew 3:9: do not begin to say: we have Abraham as father, etc.

Against the opinion of these, therefore, he had first brought in that of the sons of Abraham one was elected and the other reprobated. But they could ascribe this either to the diversity of the mothers, because Ishmael was born of the slave woman and Isaac of the free woman; or to the diversity of the merits of the father, because he begot Ishmael while uncircumcised. Therefore, so that every subterfuge might be excluded, he brings in an example where one is elected and the other reprobated, of those who are begotten not only from one father but also from one mother and at the same time — indeed, from one act of intercourse.

Then, when he says "when not yet," etc., he shows his proposition, and first through the authority of Genesis 25:24; second through the authority of the prophet, at the place "as it is written," etc.

Concerning the first he does three things. First he designates the time of the promise, and says that through the promise one of the sons of Rebecca was preferred to the other, when they had not yet been born. And just as through the foregoing he excluded the opinion of the Jews who trusted in the merits of the father, so also through this he excludes the error of the Manichees, who ascribe the diversity of things that happen to men to their nativity, namely that the life and death of each person is disposed according to the constellation under which he was born — against which it is said in Jeremiah 10:2: do not fear the signs of heaven which the nations fear. But he adds: or had done anything good or evil, where the error of the Pelagians is excluded, who say that grace is given according to preceding merits, whereas nevertheless it is written in Titus 3:5: not from the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his own mercy he saved us. But both of these are shown to be false by the fact that before birth and before works one of the sons of Rebecca was preferred to the other. By this the error of Origen is also excluded, who held that the souls of men were created together with the Angels, and that on account of the merits they there performed, well or badly, they obtain the diversity of life — according to whom what is said here could not be true: when they had not yet done anything evil or good. But against this is what is said in Job 38:7: where were you, when the morning stars praised me, and all the sons of God rejoiced? For according to Origen's error it could be answered: I was among those very sons of God rejoicing.

Second he shows what could be taken from the promise itself, because one of the twins existing in the womb was preferred to the other, saying: that the purpose of God — namely of him willing to magnify one over the other — might remain, that is, might be firm; and this not according to merits but according to election, that is, insofar as God himself, by spontaneous will, chose one before the other — not because he was holy, but so that he might be holy, according to Ephesians 1:4: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy. But this is the purpose of predestination, of which it is said in the same place: predestined according to the purpose of his will.

Third he sets down the promise, saying: not from works — which preceded not at all, as has been said — but from him who calls, that is, from the very grace of the one calling, of whom it was said above: whom he predestined, these he also called — it was said to her, namely to Rebecca, that the elder, namely Esau, will serve the younger, namely Jacob. This indeed can be understood in three ways.

In one way according to their persons, and thus it is understood that Esau served Jacob, not directly but by occasion, insofar as the persecution which he inflicted on him turned to his good, according to Proverbs 11:29: he who is foolish shall serve the wise.

Second it can be referred to the peoples begotten from each of the two: because the Idumeans were at one time subject to the Israelites, according to Psalm 59:8: into Idumea I will stretch out my shoe. And this seems to fit with what is set forth beforehand in Genesis 25:23. For it is set forth beforehand: two peoples shall be divided from your womb; people shall overcome people, and the elder shall serve the younger.

Third it can be understood as said figuratively, so that by the elder is understood the people of the Jews, who first received the adoption of sonship, according to Exodus 4:22: Israel is my firstborn — and by the younger is figured the people of the Gentiles, who was called to the faith later, who is also figured by the prodigal son. The elder people, therefore, shall serve the younger, insofar as the Jews are our satchel-bearers, keeping the books from which testimony is given to our faith. John 5:39: search the Scriptures.

Then, when he says "as it is written," etc., he proves his proposition from the authority of the prophet, saying: as it is written — namely in chapter 1, verse 2 of the prophet Malachi — in the person of God saying: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have held in hatred. But a certain Gloss says here that what was said above — the elder shall serve the younger — was said according to foreknowledge; but what he says here is to be understood according to judgment, namely because God loved Jacob on account of good works, just as he also loves all the saints. Proverbs 8:17: I love those who love me. But Esau he held in hatred on account of sins, as it is written in Ecclesiasticus 12:7: the Most High holds sinners in hatred.

But because the love of man is preceded by the love of God, according to 1 John 4:10: not as though we had loved God, but because he first loved us — it is necessary to say that Jacob was loved by God before he himself loved God. Nor can it be said that God began to love him in time, otherwise his affection would be mutable. And therefore it is necessary to say that God loved Jacob from eternity, as is said in Jeremiah 31:3: with an everlasting love I have loved you.

Now it must be considered, in these words of the Apostle, that he sets down three things in God pertaining to the saints, namely election, through which predestination is understood, and the election of God — which indeed are really the same in God, but differ in concept. For the love of God itself is said according as he wills good to someone absolutely; but election is said according as, through the good which he wills to someone, he prefers him to another; but predestination is according as he directs a man to that good which he wills for him, by loving and electing. And therefore, according to reason, predestination follows love, just as the will regarding the end naturally precedes the direction of certain things to the end.

But election and love are ordered differently in God and in man. For in man election precedes love, for the will of man is moved to love from the good which it considers in the thing loved, by reason of which it pre-elects it over another, and bestows its love on the thing pre-elected. But the will of God is the cause of every good that is in the creature, and therefore the good by which one creature is preferred to another by way of election follows upon the will of God, which is concerning the good of that creature, which pertains to the concept of love. Hence God does not love a man on account of some good which he elects in him, but rather because he loves him, he prefers him to others by electing him.

But just as the love of which he speaks here pertains to the eternal predestination of God, so also the hatred of which he speaks here pertains to the reprobation by which God reprobates sinners. Nor is it to be said that this reprobation is temporal, since nothing temporal is in the divine will, but it is from eternity: which indeed, as to one thing, agrees with love or predestination, but as to another thing, differs. It agrees indeed as to this, that just as predestination is the preparation of glory, so reprobation is the preparation of punishment. Isaiah 30:33: Topheth is prepared from yesterday, prepared by the king. But it differs as to this, that predestination imports the preparation of merits by which one arrives at glory, but reprobation imports the preparation of sins by which one arrives at punishment. And therefore the foreknowledge of merits cannot be any reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be some reason for reprobation on the part of the punishment which is prepared for the reprobate, insofar namely as God proposes that he will punish the wicked on account of the sins which they have from themselves, not from God; but he proposes that he will reward the just on account of merits which they do not have from themselves. Hosea 13:9: your destruction is from you, O Israel; only in me is your help.

After the Apostle has premised that, according to God's election, one is preferred to another not from works but from the grace of him who calls, here he inquires into the justice of this election. And first he sets forth the doubt; second he resolves it, at the words By no means. For he says to Moses, etc.; third he raises an objection against the solution, at the words Thou wilt say therefore to me: why doth he yet, etc. He says therefore first: it has been said that God, without any preceding merit, chooses one and reprobates another. What then shall we say? Can it be proved through this that there is iniquity with God? It seems that it can. For it pertains to justice in distributions that equal things be distributed equally to equals. But men, once the difference of merits is removed, are equal. If therefore, without any consideration of merits, God distributes unequally, choosing one and reprobating another, it seems that there is iniquity in him — which is against what is said in Deuteronomy 32:4: God is faithful and without any iniquity; and Psalm 118:137: Thou art just, O Lord, and thy judgment is right.

Now it should be known that Origen, wishing to resolve this objection, fell into an error. For he lays down in his Peri Archon that God from the beginning made only spiritual creatures, and all equal, lest, from their inequality, iniquity might be ascribed to God according to the aforesaid reasoning; but afterward the diversity of creatures followed from the diversity of merits. For of those spiritual creatures, some were converted to God through love, more or less, and according to this the diverse orders of Angels were distinguished; while others were turned away from God, more or less, and according to this they were bound to bodies, whether noble or ignoble — some indeed to heavenly bodies, some to the bodies of Demons, some to the bodies of men. And according to this, the reason for establishing and distinguishing corporeal creatures is the sin of the spiritual creature. But this is against what is said in Genesis 1:31: God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good — by which it is given to be understood that the cause of producing corporeal creatures is goodness, as Augustine says in The City of God. And therefore, this opinion having been rejected, it must be seen how the Apostle resolves the doubt, when he says By no means. For he saith to Moses, etc.

And concerning this he does two things. First he resolves the aforesaid objection as regards the love of the saints; second as regards the hatred or reprobation of the wicked, at the words For the Scripture saith, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the authority of Scripture from which the solution proceeds; second he draws out a conclusion from it, at the words Therefore it is not of him that willeth, etc.

Now he brings forward the authority which is found in Exodus 33:19, where the Lord said to Moses, according to our text: I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be gracious to whom it shall please me; but the Apostle brings it forward according to the letter of the Septuagint, saying: For he saith to Moses, the Lord: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy — where, according to the surface of the letter, all our goods are ascribed to the mercy of God, according to that word of Isaiah 63:7: I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things that he hath bestowed upon us; and Lamentations 3:22: It is of the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed, for his mercies are many.

Now this authority is expounded in the Gloss in two ways, and according to this the question and objection are resolved in two ways from this authority. In one way thus: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, that is, on him who is worthy of mercy; and, for greater emphasis, he repeats, saying, I will show mercy to whom I have mercy, that is, to him whom I judge worthy that mercy be shown, just as it is said in Psalm 102:13: The Lord hath had mercy on them that fear him. And according to this, although he bestows his gifts mercifully, nevertheless he is excused from injustice, because he gives to those to whom it is to be given, and does not give to him to whom it is not to be given, according to the rectitude of his judgment.

But to have mercy on him who is worthy can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that someone is understood to be worthy of mercy on account of works pre-existing in this life, though not in another life, as Origen held — which pertains to the heresy of the Pelagians, who held that the grace of God is given to men according to merits. But this cannot stand, because, as has been said, even these good merits themselves are from God to man, and are the effects of predestination.

In another way it can be understood that someone is called worthy of mercy, not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits following upon it — for instance, so that we might say that God gives someone grace and has purposed from eternity to give it to him whom he foreknew would make good use of it. And according to this the Gloss understands that he has mercy on him on whom mercy ought to be had. Whence it says: I will have mercy on him whom I have had mercy on, that is, I will have mercy on him by calling him and bestowing grace, on him of whom I shall have foreknown that I would grant mercy, knowing that he would be converted and would remain with me.

But it seems that this too cannot be fittingly said. For it is manifest that nothing can be posited as the ground of predestination which is an effect of predestination, even if it be taken as it exists in God's foreknowledge, because the ground of predestination is understood prior to predestination, whereas the effect is included within it. Now it is manifest that every benefit of God which he confers upon man unto salvation is an effect of divine predestination. But the divine benefit extends itself not only to the infusion of grace, by which man is justified, but also to the use of grace: just as also in natural things, God causes not only the forms themselves in things, but also the very motions and operations of the forms, since God is the principle of all motion, and when his operation ceases to move, no motion or operation follows from the forms. And just as the habit of grace or of virtue stands to its use in the soul, so does the natural form stand to its operation. And therefore it is said in Isaiah 26:12: Thou hast wrought all our works in us, O Lord.

Now Aristotle proves this by a special argument concerning the works of the human will. For since man has the potency to opposites — for instance, to sit or not to sit — it is necessary that he be reduced to act by something else. Now he is reduced to the act of one of these through counsel, by which he elects one of the opposites in preference to the other. But since man also has the potency to take counsel or not to take counsel, there will have to be something by which he is reduced to the act of counsel. And since there cannot be an infinite regress in this, there must be some extrinsic principle superior to man which moves him to take counsel, and this is nothing other than God.

Thus therefore the very use of grace is from God, nor for this reason is the habit of grace superfluous, just as the natural forms are not superfluous either, although God works in all things, because, as it is said in Wisdom 8:1, he disposes all things sweetly — namely, because through their own forms all things are inclined, as it were spontaneously, toward that to which they are ordered by God. Thus therefore it cannot be that merits consequent upon grace are the reason for having mercy or for predestining, but the will of God alone, according to which he mercifully sets some free.

For it is manifest that distributive justice has place in those things which are given out of debt — for instance, if some have merited a wage, so that a greater wage be given to those who labor more — but it does not have place in those things which someone gives spontaneously and mercifully; for instance, if someone, finding two poor men on the road, gives to one what he can, or resolves to give as alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Likewise, if someone, when two men equally offend him, remits the offense to one and not to the other, he is merciful to the one, and just toward the other, but unjust to neither. For since all men, on account of the sin of the first parent, are born liable to condemnation, those whom God frees through his grace, he frees by mercy alone; and thus to some he is merciful, whom he frees, while to others he is just, whom he does not free, but to neither is he unjust.

And therefore the Apostle resolves the question by the authority which ascribes everything to divine mercy. It should be known, however, that the mercy of God is considered according to three things. First, according to predestination, by which he purposed from eternity to free some. Psalm 102:16: his mercy is from eternity and unto eternity. Second, according to the calling and justification by which he saves men in time. Titus 3:5: according to his mercy he hath saved us. Third, by magnifying through glory, when he frees from every misery. Psalm 102:4: who crowneth thee with mercy and compassion. And therefore he says I will have mercy — namely, by calling and justifying — on him on whom I have mercy — by predestining and bestowing mercy — finally glorifying him on whom I have mercy by calling and justifying. And this sense agrees more with our text, which says: I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be gracious to whom it pleases me — where manifestly divine mercy is ascribed not to merits, but to the divine will alone.

Then, when he says Therefore it is not of him that willeth, etc., he concludes the proposition from the authority premised. And this conclusion can be understood in several ways. In one way thus: Therefore — namely, man's very salvation — is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, that is, it is not owed to anyone by reason of his will, or of his exterior operation, which is called a course, according to that word of 1 Corinthians 9:24: So run that you may obtain; but it is of God that showeth mercy, that is, it proceeds from the mercy of God alone, and this follows most especially from the authority brought forward in Deuteronomy 9:4: neither say thou in thy heart, Because of my justice hath the Lord brought me in to possess this land.

But it can also be understood otherwise, so that the sense is: all things proceed from the mercy of God; therefore it is not of him that willeth — namely, to will — nor of him that runneth — namely, to run — but each of the two is of God that showeth mercy, according to that word of 1 Corinthians 15:10: yet not I, but the grace of God with me; and John 15:5: without me you can do nothing.

But if the Apostle had understood only this in this saying, since even grace does not will or run without man's free choice, he could conversely have said: it is not of God that showeth mercy, but of him that willeth and of him that runneth — which is a thing that pious ears do not bear. Whence something more must be understood from these words, namely, that the primacy of God's grace is thereby attributed. For an action is always attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary one — for instance, if we should say that the axe does not make the chest, but the craftsman by means of the axe. Now the will of man is moved by God toward the good. Whence above, in chapter 8:14, it was said: they who are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And therefore man's interior operation is to be attributed not principally to man, but to God. Philippians 2:13: It is God who worketh in us both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.

But if it is not of him that willeth to will, nor of him that runneth to run, but of God who moves man to this, it seems that man is not the master of his own act, which pertains to freedom of choice. And therefore it must be said that God moves all things, but in different ways, inasmuch, namely, as each thing is moved by him according to the mode of its own nature. And thus man is moved by God to will and to run through the mode of free will. Thus therefore to will and to run belongs to man, as one acting freely; but it does not belong to man as the principal mover, but to God.

Then, when he says For the Scripture saith, etc., he resolves the aforesaid question as regards the reprobation of the wicked. And first he brings forward an authority; second he draws the conclusion, at the words Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, etc. He says therefore: thus it has been shown that there is no iniquity with God as regards this, that from eternity he loves the just. But neither is there as regards this, that from eternity he reprobates the wicked. For the Scripture saith from the mouth of God, in Exodus 9:16: for this same purpose have I raised thee up (or, have I preserved thee, according to another text), that I may show my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. But our text has it thus: and therefore have I appointed thee, that I may show my strength in thee, and that my name may be related in all the earth.

Here, first, it is considered what God does concerning the reprobate, which he shows by saying, for this same purpose have I preserved thee, that is, thou wast worthy to die on account of the evils thou hadst done — above, chapter 1:32: they that do such things, are worthy of death — but nevertheless I did not immediately bring death upon thee but preserved thee in life for the end which follows, namely, that I might show, etc. And in this sense also can be read what is said, have I raised thee up, that is, when before me thou wast dead by reason of thy merits, I granted thee life, as it were raising thee up. In which it appears that God does not do iniquity to the reprobate, since they themselves, by their own merits, would be worthy of being immediately destroyed, but this very fact, that he preserves them in life, proceeds from his exceeding great goodness. Jeremiah 10:24: correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment, and not in thy fury, lest thou bring me to nothing.

In another way, have I raised thee up can be understood as into sin, that thou mayest become worse. Which indeed is not to be understood in this way, that God causes malice in man, but is to be understood permissively, namely because, by his just judgment, he permits some to fall into sin on account of preceding iniquities, just as above, 1:24, it was said: God gave them up to a reprobate sense. But something further still seems to me to be understood in this, namely, that by a certain interior instinct men are moved by God toward good and toward evil. Whence Augustine says, in the book On Grace and Free Will, that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills toward whatever he will, whether toward good things, according to his mercy, or toward evil things, according to their merits. Whence also God is said quite often to raise up some toward the good, according to that word of Daniel 13:45: God raised up the spirit of a younger boy. He is also said to raise up some to do evil, according to that word of Isaiah 13:17: I will raise up the Medes, who shall slay little children with arrows.

Differently, however, toward good things and toward evil things: for toward good things he inclines the wills of men directly and per se, as the author of good things; but toward evil he is said to incline or raise up men only occasionally, inasmuch, namely, as God proposes something to man either interiorly or exteriorly which, so far as it is in itself, is inductive to good; but man, on account of his own malice, perversely makes use of it unto evil. Above, 2:4: knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath. And Job 24:23: God hath given him a place for penance, and he abuseth it unto pride. And likewise, God, so far as it is in himself, interiorly instigates man toward good, for instance a king toward defending the rights of his kingdom, or toward punishing rebels; but a wicked man abuses this good instinct according to the malice of his own heart. And this is plain from Isaiah 10:6, where it is said of Assur: I will send him to a deceitful nation, and against the people of my wrath I will give him a charge, that he may take away the spoils, etc.; and afterward: but he shall not think so, and his heart shall not esteem it so, but his heart shall be set to destroy. And in this way it happened concerning Pharaoh, who, when he was raised up by God for the guarding of his kingdom, abused this raising-up unto cruelty.

Second, it must be considered to what end God partly does these things and partly permits them. For it must be considered that God works in creatures for his own manifestation, according to that word above, 1:20: the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Whence also this sort of raising-up is ordered to this very end — both as regards those present, that I may show my power in thee, Exodus 14:31: Israel saw the great hand which the Lord had exercised against the Egyptians — and as regards those absent, that my name may be declared throughout all the earth, Psalm 95:3: declare his glory among the nations. Thus therefore it is plain that as regards this there is no iniquity with God, because he makes use of his creature, according to its merits, unto his own glory. And in this same sense it can be expounded if it be said, I have appointed thee, that is, I have ordered thy malice unto my glory; for God orders malice, but does not cause it.

Then, when he says Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, etc., he draws a certain conclusion from both authorities brought forward above. For from what was said, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, he concludes therefore he hath mercy on whom he will — Psalm 102:13: the Lord hath had mercy on them that fear him. And from what was said, for this same purpose have I raised thee up, he concludes and whom he will he hardeneth — Isaiah 63:17: thou hast hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee; Ecclesiasticus 33:12: some of them he hath blessed and exalted, and some of them he hath cursed and brought low.

And indeed, as regards what is said concerning the mercy of God, there is no doubt, given what has been premised. But concerning the hardening there seems to be a twofold doubt. First, because hardness of heart seems to pertain to fault, according to that word of Ecclesiasticus 3:27: a hard heart shall fear evil at the last. If therefore God hardens, it follows that he is the author of fault. Against which it is said, James 1:13: God is not a tempter of evils. To this it must be said that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though he caused malice in them, but indirectly, inasmuch, namely, as from those things which he does in man, within or without, man takes an occasion of sin, and this God himself permits. Whence he is not said to harden as though by infusing malice, but by not bestowing grace.

The second doubt is that hardening itself does not seem able to be ascribed to the divine will, since it is written, 1 Thessalonians 4:3: this is the will of God, your sanctification; and 1 Timothy 2:4: who will have all men to be saved. To this it must be said that both mercy and justice import a disposition of the will. Whence, just as showing mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also is that which pertains to justice. Thus therefore it must be understood: he hath mercy on whom he will, namely, through his mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth, through his justice; because those whom he hardens merit this, that they be hardened by him, as was said above in chapter 1.

Having set forth the solution of the aforementioned question, here the Apostle raises an objection against that very solution, and especially against the last conclusion in which it was said: he has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. First, therefore, he states the objection; second, the solution, at the place, O man, who are you, and so on.

He says therefore first: it has been said that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills; you will say to me then: what then is still sought? That is, what further need is there to inquire concerning the cause of the good and evil things that are done here, since everything is attributed to the divine will, which is a sufficient cause, because no one can resist it? Hence there follows: who resists his will? Ecclesiastes 1:13: I proposed in my mind to seek and search out wisely concerning all things that are done under the sun. Or otherwise, what then is still sought, that is, does God still complain of men when they sin, as in Isaiah 1:2: I have nourished and exalted sons, but they have despised me, and so on. It seems, however, that he does not have a just complaint, because everything proceeds from his will, which no one can resist. Hence he adds: who resists his will? Or otherwise, what then is still sought, namely, from man, that he do good or avoid evil. Micah 6:8: I will show you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you, and so on. But it is sought in vain from someone that which is not in his power. But nothing seems to be in man's power according to what has been said above, by which everything appears to be ascribed to the divine will, which cannot be resisted. There follows: for who resists his will? As if he were to say: no one. Esther 13:9: there is no one who can resist your will. And this seems to be the Apostle's intention.

Then, when he says O man, who are you, etc., he responds to the aforementioned question. For the understanding of this response it must be considered that concerning the election of the good and the reprobation of the evil, a twofold question can be raised. One indeed in general, why God wills to harden some and to have mercy on others. The other in particular, why he wills to have mercy on this one and to harden this one or that one. And indeed a reason can be assigned for this question; but for the second question no reason can be assigned, except the simple will of God, an example of which is evident in human affairs. For if someone wishing to build had gathered together many stones, similar and equal, a reason could be assigned why he places some at the top and some at the bottom, on the part of the end, because for the perfection of the house which he intends to make, both the foundation is required, which has stones at the bottom, and the top of the wall, which has stones at the top. But why he places these stones at the top and those at the bottom has no reason at all, except that the craftsman so willed.

First, therefore, the Apostle responds to the doubt as regards the second question, namely, why he has mercy on this man and hardens that one; second, as regards the first question, namely, why he has mercy on some and hardens others, at the place, but if God, willing, and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he argues against the presumption of the one asking; second he brings forward the authority that resolves the question, at the place, does the thing formed say, etc.; third he expounds the authority, at the place, or has he not power, and so on.

He says therefore first: O man, who are frail and ignorant, who are you to answer God back? Are you sufficient to answer him, if he should wish to contend with you in judgment? Job 9:3: if he wishes to contend in judgment with him, he will not be able to answer him one time in a thousand. And, as is said in Job 39:32, he who argues with God ought to answer him. In this it is given to understand that man ought not to search out the reason of the divine judgments with the intention of comprehending them, because they exceed human reason. Sirach 3:22: seek not the things that are higher than yourself. Proverbs 25:27: he who is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory.

Then, when he says does the thing formed say, etc., he brings forward the authority which is found in Isaiah 45:9: shall the clay say to its potter: what are you making? And your work is without hands. Here it must be considered that if some craftsman, out of vile material, should make a beautiful vessel suited to noble uses, the whole is ascribed to the goodness of the craftsman — for instance, if out of clay he should make small dishes and jugs fit for a noble table. But if out of vile material, say clay, he should make a vessel suited to vile uses, say for the kitchen or such offices, the vessel could not complain, if it had reason. For it could complain if, out of precious material lying ready to the craftsman's working, say out of gold and precious stones, he should make a vessel appointed to vile offices. But human nature has vileness from its own matter, because, as is said in Genesis 2:7: God made man from the slime of the earth; but it has a greater vileness from the corruption of sin, which entered into this world through one man. And therefore man is rightly compared to clay, Job 30:19: I am compared to clay, and am made like to ashes and cinders. Hence whatever good man has, he ought to ascribe to the divine goodness as to the principal agent. Isaiah 64:8: now, Lord, you are our father, but we are clay, and you are our former, and we are all the work of your hands. But if God does not advance man to better things, but, leaving him in his weakness, appoints him to the lowest use, he does him no injury, such that he could justly complain of God.

Then, when he says or has he not power, etc., the Apostle expounds the words of the prophet. As if he were to say: this is what is meant by the thing formed, that is, the clay vessel, could not say to the one forming it, why have you made me thus? Because the potter has free power, out of the material of the clay, to make whatever work pleases him. Hence he says, or has he not power — namely, free power — the potter of clay, who indeed works in vile material, from the same lump — namely, of vile material — to make, without injury to anyone, one vessel indeed unto honor, that is, unto honorable uses, and another unto dishonor, that is, unto viler uses. 2 Timothy 2:20: for in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of clay; and some indeed unto honor, but some unto dishonor. And likewise God has free power to make, out of the same corrupted material of the human race, as out of a certain clay, doing injury to no one, some men prepared unto glory, and others left in misery. Jeremiah 18:6: as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, house of Israel.

Then, when he says but if God, willing, etc., he resolves the first question, namely, why God wills to have mercy on some, and to leave others in misery, or to elect some and reprobate others. Concerning this it must be considered that the end of all the divine works is the manifestation of the divine goodness. Proverbs 16:4: the Lord has made all things for himself. Hence above, at 1:20, it was said that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be sufficiently manifested in one way, nor in one creature. And therefore he established diverse creatures, in which it is manifested in diverse ways. But especially in rational creatures, in whom his justice is manifested as regards those whom he punishes for their merits, and his mercy in those whom he frees by his grace. And therefore, so that both might be manifested in men, he mercifully freed some, but not all.

First, therefore, he sets forth the reason for the reprobation of the evil; second he sets forth the reason for the election of the good, at the place, that he might show the riches, and so on. Now in both a threefold difference is to be noted. The first indeed according to the end; the second, according to the use; the third, according to the divine act.

Now the end of the reprobation or hardening of the evil is the manifestation of the divine justice and power. And as to this he says, but, if God, willing to show his wrath — that is, his vindictive justice. For wrath is not said of God according to a disturbance of feeling, but according to the effect of vengeance. Above, 1:18: the wrath of God is revealed, and so on. He adds, moreover, and to make known his power, because God, against the evil, not only makes use of wrath, that is, vengeance, in punishing those subject to himself, but also, by his power, subjects them to himself. Philippians 3:21: according to the working by which he is able even to subject all things to himself. Exodus 14:31: they saw the Egyptians dead upon the shore of the sea, and the great hand which the Lord had exercised against them. But the use of the evil to which God employs them is wrath, that is, punishment. And therefore he calls them vessels of wrath, that is, instruments of justice, which God uses to show wrath, that is, vindictive justice. Ephesians 2:3: we were by nature children of wrath. But the act which God exercises toward them is not that he disposes them to evil, because they themselves have of themselves a disposition to evil from the corruption of the first sin. Hence he says, vessels fit for destruction, that is, having in themselves an aptitude for eternal damnation. Genesis 6:5: God seeing that the wickedness of men was great upon the earth, and that every thought of the human heart was bent upon evil at all times. But this only does God do concerning them, that he permits them to do the things they desire. Hence he pointedly says, endured; and this shows his patience, that he does not immediately bring vengeance. Hence he adds, with much patience. Sirach 5:4: the Most High is a patient rewarder.

Then, on the part of the good, he likewise sets forth three things. First indeed the end, when he says, that he might show the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown to the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness, calling them back from evil, and drawing them toward justice, and finally bringing them to glory. And this is what he says, that he might show the riches of his glory, concerning which riches it was said above, 2:4: do you despise the riches of his goodness? Ephesians 2:4: but God, who is rich in mercy. Pointedly, moreover, he says, that he might show the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and reprobation of the evil, which is according to God's justice, manifests and commends the glory of the saints, who are freed from that very misery. Second, he describes their use, when he says, upon vessels of mercy. Now he names the good vessels of mercy, because God uses them as instruments for manifesting his mercy. Sirach 44:10: these are men of mercy. Third, he sets forth the act which God exercises concerning them. For God does not merely sustain them, as though of themselves apt for the good, but he prepares and disposes them, calling them to glory. Hence he says, which he prepared unto glory. Psalm 64:7: preparing the mountains in your strength.

Now the construction is defective and left in suspension up to this point, so that the sense is: if God, willing to do this, has mercy on some and hardens others, what could justly be said against this? As if he were to say: nothing. For he does not so harden those whom he wills as to compel them to sin, but he sustains them so that they tend toward evil according to their own inclination.

After the Apostle has shown that God's grace is given to men by divine election, through which men are called to grace, here he shows that the aforesaid election or calling belongs not only to the Jews (as they themselves could boast, on account of what is said in Deuteronomy 4:37: "I have loved thy fathers"), but also to the Gentiles. And first he sets forth what he intends; second he proves his proposition, at the place, "as he saith also in Osee," etc.; third from what has been said he infers a conclusion, at the place, "what shall we say then," etc.

He says therefore first: it has been said that he prepared the saints unto glory, whom also he called, namely by his grace, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. Above, 3:29: "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?" Sophonias 2:11: "all the islands of the Gentiles shall adore him, every man from his own place."

Then when he says, "as he saith also in Osee," etc., he proves his proposition. And first as to the Gentiles; second as to the Jews, at the place, "and Isaias crieth," etc. Concerning the first he sets down two authorities of Osee speaking on behalf of the Gentiles, of which the first promises them the gifts of God; the second, the divine sonship itself, at the place, "and it shall be, in the place where it was said," etc.

He says therefore first: "as," the Lord, "saith in Osee," because it was he who spoke in the prophets. 2 Kings 23:2: "the spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me, and his word by my tongue." Whence also it is said in Osee 1:2: "the beginning of the Lord's speaking by Osee." Now it must be considered that from three goods which were eminent among the Jews, the Gentiles were estranged: the first of which was divine worship, by reason of which they were called the people of God, as it were serving him and obeying his precepts. Whence in Psalm 94:7 it is said: "but we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." But from the fellowship of this people the Gentiles were estranged, according to Ephesians 2:12: "alienated from the conversation of Israel, and strangers to the testaments." But through Christ they were made the people of God. Titus 2:14: "he gave himself for us, that he might purify to himself an acceptable people." And this is what he says: "I will call that which was not my people, my people," that is, the Gentile nation, which was not my people, "my people," that is, so that it may be my people. The second is the privilege of love. Osee 3:1: "the Lord loveth the children of Israel," namely in this, that he bestowed upon them many benefits leading to special grace, from which love the Gentiles were formerly excluded. Ephesians 4:18: "alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them." And therefore he says: "and her that was not beloved," mine, namely the Gentile nation, "beloved," mine. Ephesians 2:13: "you, who sometime were far off, are made near in the blood of Christ." Above, 5:10: "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." The third is freedom from original sin, which was conferred upon the Jews in circumcision. Isaias 14:1: "the Lord will have mercy on Jacob." But of this mercy the Gentiles were not partakers. Ezechiel 16:4: "when thou wast born, in the day of thy nativity, thy navel was not cut"; and further on: "no eye had pity on thee, to do any of these things to thee, having compassion on thee." But afterward through Christ they obtained mercy. Therefore it follows: "and her that had not obtained mercy, to obtain mercy." Titus 3:5: "according to his mercy he saved us," etc.

Now this authority is found in Osee 2:24 according to the Septuagint, in place of which our text has: "I will have mercy on her that was without mercy, and I will say to that which was not my people: thou art my people."

Then when he says, "and it shall be, in the place," etc., he introduces another authority, which is found in Osee 1:10, in which the dignity of the sons of God is promised to them, of which the Jews used to boast on account of what is said in Isaias 1:2: "I have nourished up children and exalted them, but they have despised me." And Deuteronomy 32:6: "is not he thy father?" The Gentiles, moreover, were not only not called sons, which pertains to those who serve God out of love and are led by the Spirit of God, as was said above in chapter 8:14, but they were not even worthy to be called the people of God, which could pertain even to those who had received the spirit of servitude unto fear. Whence he says, "and it shall be, in the place," that is, in Judea, "where it was said to them," namely to the Gentiles, by the Jews speaking as it were in the person of God, "you are not my people," because they did not reckon them the people of God, "there," that is, even among the believing Jews, "they shall be called the sons of the living God." Or, "in the place," that is, in the whole world into which they will be converted to the faith, so that it may be understood that they will not be converted in the manner of proselytes, whom the Jews used to make, who, leaving their own places, went to Judea; but that this was not going to be the case with those who were to be converted to Christ is shown in Sophonias 2:11: "every man shall adore him from his own place." To each one, therefore, dwelling in his own place, "where it was said to them," formerly by the divine sentence, "you are not my people," there "they shall be called the sons of God" through divine adoption. John 1:12: "he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name."

Then when he says, "and Isaias crieth," etc., he proves the proposition as to the Jews by the authority of Isaias. And he sets down two authorities, of which the first seems to pertain to all who believe from among the Jews, the second especially to the apostles, at the place, "and as Isaias foretold," etc.

He says therefore first: it has been said through Osee on behalf of the Gentiles, "and Isaias crieth," that is, speaks openly on behalf of the conversion of Israel. Isaias 58:1: "cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet." In this first authority, first, he sets down the fewness of the converted of Israel, saying, "if the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea," that is, innumerable by reason of the multitude of the Gentiles. Genesis 22:17: "I will multiply thy seed as the sand of the sea," etc. 3 Kings 4:20: "Juda and Israel were innumerable as the sand of the sea." "A remnant shall be saved," that is, not all, nor the greater part, but a few who shall be left over from the destruction of the rest. Micheas 7:1: "I am become as one that gleaneth in the autumn the grapes of the vintage." Below, 11:5: "a remnant, according to the election of grace, is saved."

Second, at the place, "for the word finishing and cutting short," etc., he assigns the cause of salvation, and, first, he sets down the efficacy of the evangelical word, saying, "for the word finishing and cutting short in equity." Here a twofold efficacy of the evangelical word is noted. The first is that it is "finishing," that is, perfecting; for as it is said in Hebrews 7:19: "the law brought nothing to perfection." But the Lord says, Matthew 5:17: "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it": both because he applied the truth to the figures of the law, and because he expounded the moral precepts of the law in the due manner, and removed the occasions of transgressing, and also added to them counsels of perfection. Whence also to the rich young man, Matthew 19:21, who had kept all the commandments of the law, he said: "one thing is wanting to thee; if thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast," etc. And on this account he said to his disciples, Matthew 5:48: "be you perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." The second efficacy is that of cutting short, and this is fittingly joined to the first, because the more perfect a word is, the higher it is, and consequently the more simple and brief. Now the word of the Gospel cuts short the words of the law, because it comprehends all the figural sacrifices of the law in one true sacrifice, by which Christ offered himself for us as a victim, as is said in Ephesians 5:2. And it concludes all the moral precepts of the law in the two precepts of charity, Matthew 22:40: "on these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." Whence he says, "cutting short in equity," either because nothing of the multitude of the figures and precepts of the law is omitted, but is comprehended under the brevity of the Gospel; or because nothing of them remains to be observed except what is equitable according to the dictate of natural reason, Psalm 118:72: "all thy commandments are equity." Now "shall be" must be understood, so that the sense is: the word of the Gospel shall be cutting short and finishing in equity.

Second, when he says, "because the word," etc., he assigns the reason for the aforesaid efficacy, saying, "because the Lord upon the earth," existing, that is, on the earth as a man dwelling there (according to Baruch 3:38: "afterward he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men") "will make a shortened word." For the word that the Lord God himself, having put on flesh, spoke through himself, ought to be more perfect and of greater power than the words which he spoke through the prophets, according to Hebrews 1: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets," etc. Or otherwise: because "the Lord," namely God the Father, "will make upon the earth a shortened word," that is, incarnate, because the Son of God emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Now it is called emptied or shortened, not because anything was subtracted from the fullness or greatness of his divinity, but because he took up our lowliness and smallness.

Now this authority is found in Isaias 10:22, where according to our text it is said thus: "if thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be converted from it. The consummation abridged shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consummation and an abridgement in the midst of all the earth."

Then when he says, "and as Isaias foretold," etc., he introduces an authority pertaining especially to the apostles, saying, "and as Isaias foretold," Isaias 1:9: "except the Lord of Sabaoth," that is, of hosts or of powers, "had left us," namely out of his mercy, "a seed," that is, the word of the Gospel; Luke 8:11: "the seed is the word of God." Or, "seed," that is, Christ, Galatians 3:16: "and to thy seed, which is Christ." Or, "seed," that is, the apostles, Isaias 6:13: "the holy seed shall be that which shall stand up in it." "We had been made as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrha." For the sin of the Jews was more grievous than that of the Sodomites. Lamentations 4:6: "the iniquity of my people is made greater than the sin of Sodom." And Ezechiel 16:48: "Sodom itself and her daughters have not done as thou hast done, and thy daughters." And therefore that the Jews were not totally exterminated as were the Sodomites is to be imputed to the divine mercy. Lamentations 3:22: "the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed."

Then when he says, "what shall we say then?" he infers a conclusion from what has been said. And first as to the Gentiles; second as to the Jews, at the place, "but Israel," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he concludes what he intends, saying: "what shall we say then," from the consideration of the aforesaid? This, I say, that the Gentiles "have apprehended," that is, have attained, "justice," namely by which they are called sons. 1 Corinthians 6:11: "and such indeed you were, but you are washed," but you are justified. And this indeed from the calling of divine election, not from merits, which is clear from what he says, "which followed not after justice," according to Ephesians 2:12: "that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the conversation of Israel." Second, he explains what he had said: "but the justice that is of faith," not that which consists in works. For the Gentiles were not converted for this, that they might observe legal justice, but that they might be justified through faith in Christ. Above, 3:22: "the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ."

Then when he says, "but Israel," etc., he introduces the conclusion as to the Jews. And first he concludes what he intends, saying: "but Israel," that is, 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 called the law of the spirit of life, through which men are justified, to which the people of the Jews did not attain; which nevertheless they followed after by observing the shadow of this spiritual law, which consists in legal observances. Hebrews 10:1: "the law having a shadow of the good things to come." Or, "following after the law of justice," that is, the law of Moses, which is a law of justice if it be well understood, because it teaches justice. Or it is called a law of justice, because it makes men just, not truly, but outwardly, while sins are avoided not out of love but out of fear of the penalty which the law inflicted. Isaias 51:1: "hear me, you that follow that which is just, and seek the Lord." And in the same place: "hear me, you that know what is just, my people, my law in their heart."

Second, he assigns the cause, saying, "why," namely, while they followed after the law, did they not attain to the law of justice? Because, namely, they did not follow after it by the due way. And this is what he adds: "because not by faith," namely of Christ, did they seek to be justified, "but as it were of works of the law." For they followed the figure and repudiated the truth. Above, 3:20: "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him."

Third, he manifests the proposed cause, and first he sets forth the manifestation, saying: "for they stumbled at the stumblingstone," that is, at Christ, who is likened to a stumblingstone, in this, that just as a stone against which a man stumbles is not avoided on account of its smallness, so the Jews, seeing Christ possessed of our infirmity, did not take care to avoid stumbling against him. Isaias 53:3: "as it were his face was hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not." Jeremias 13:16: "before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains," that is, against Christ and his apostles, who are called dark mountains, on account of the fact that their dignity and greatness lay hidden.

Second, for this he introduces an authority, saying, "as it is written," namely in Isaias. Now the Apostle composes the words of Isaias from diverse places of Scripture. For in Isaias 28:16 it is said: "behold I will lay in the foundations of Sion a stone, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation. He that believeth, let him not hasten." And from this the beginning of the authority is taken: "behold I lay in Sion a stone," namely as it were a foundation, in which it is signified that Christ was, by divine ordination, constituted the foundation of the Church. 1 Corinthians 3:11: "for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus." It is also read in Isaias 8:14: "but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of scandal to both the houses of Israel." And from this the middle of the authority is taken, where he says, "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal," so that "stumbling" is referred to ignorance, because, as is said in 1 Corinthians 2:8, "if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." But "scandal" must be referred to the striking and the fall, by which through unbelief they fell, persecuting Christ and his apostles. 1 Corinthians 1:23: "we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock." Luke 2:34: "behold this child is set for the fall," etc. Now the end of the authority is taken from Isaias 28:16: "he that believeth, let him not hasten," in place of which it is here said: "whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded," because, namely, he shall obtain a reward from him. Ecclesiasticus 2:8: "ye that fear the Lord, believe him, and your reward shall not be made void." Now the Apostle sets down these words according to the letter of the Septuagint. And to this sense pertains what is said in our text: "he that believeth, let him not hasten." For he seems to hasten who reckons himself deluded, because he does not quickly obtain what he had hoped for.