Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 1

This letter is divided into two parts: the greeting and the body of the letter, which begins with first, I give thanks (Romans 1:8).

In the first part, three things are done. First, the person sending the greeting is described. Second, the persons greeted are identified, at to all who are at Rome (Romans 1:7). Third, the blessings invoked are stated, at grace to you (Romans 1:7).

Regarding the first point, he does two things. First, the author's person is described; second, his office is commended, at which he had promised before (Romans 1:2).

The person writing is described by four things.

First, by his name, Paul. Regarding this name, one should consider three things.

First is its accuracy. This name, as it is spelled here, cannot be Hebrew because the Hebrew alphabet does not have the letter P. It can, however, be Greek and Latin. Still, if it is taken as a letter close to P, it can be Hebrew.

Second, one should consider its meaning. Considered as Hebrew, it means “wonderful” or “chosen”; taken as Greek, it means “quiet”; and taken as Latin, it means “small.”

These meanings are fitting for him. He was chosen regarding grace; hence, he is a chosen vessel of mine (Acts 9:15). He was wonderful in his work: a marvelous vessel, the work of the Most High . He was quiet in contemplation: when I enter my house, I shall find rest with her . He was small in his humility: I am the least of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:9).

Third, one should consider when that name was given to the Apostle, since he was formerly called Saul, as is found in Acts 9.

There are three opinions about this.

Jerome says that although he was formerly called Saul, he later wished to be called Paul because of something notable he had done: namely, that he converted Sergius Paulus, a proconsul (Acts 13:7), just as Scipio was called Africanus because he had conquered Africa.

Others say this name was given to him on account of his growth in virtue, which is signified by this name, as has been said. For names are given by God to certain men at the very beginning of their lives to indicate the grace they receive at the start, as in the case of John the Baptist (Luke 1:13). In other cases, people’s names are changed to indicate their growth in virtue, as Chrysostom says. This is clear in the cases of Abraham (Genesis 17) and Peter (Matthew 16).

But others have a better explanation: that Paul always went by two names. It was customary among the Jews to take a name from the people they served, in addition to their Hebrew name. Thus, those who served the Greeks took Greek names, as is clear in the cases of Jason and Menelaus (2 Maccabees 4).

The name Paul was held in high regard among the Romans from the earliest times. Accordingly, he was called Saul among the Hebrews and Paul among the Romans, although he does not seem to have used the latter name until he began to preach to the Gentiles. Hence, it is said, but Saul, who is also called Paul (Acts 13:9). This third opinion is the one Augustine favors.

Second, the writer’s person is described by his station when he says he is a servant of Christ.

The state of servitude seems a lowly one if it is considered in itself. This is why it is imposed with a curse as a punishment for sin: Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9:25). But it is made commendable because of what is added, namely, of Jesus Christ.

For Jesus means “savior”: he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Christ means “anointed”: therefore God, your God, has anointed you (Psalms 45:7). This anointing indicates Christ’s dignity in regard to His holiness (since priests were anointed, as is clear from Exodus 29), His power (since kings were also anointed, as is clear in the cases of David and Solomon), and His knowledge (since prophets were also anointed, as in the case of Elisha).

Furthermore, it is praiseworthy for a person to be subject to his own well-being and to the spiritual anointing of grace. A thing is perfect to the extent that it is subject to its perfection, as the body is to the soul and air is to light: O Lord, I am your servant (Psalms 116:16).

This seems to conflict with John: No longer do I call you servants, but friends (John 15:15).

But it should be said that there are two kinds of servitude. One is the servitude of fear, which is not fitting for saints: You have not received the spirit of slavery again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption as sons (Romans 8:15). The other is the servitude of humility and love, which is fitting for saints: Say, “We are unworthy servants” (Luke 17:10).

A free man is one who exists for his own sake, while a servant is one who exists for the sake of another, moving because another moves him. If a person acts for another’s sake as if moved by him, the service is one of fear, which forces a man to act against his own will. But if he acts for the sake of another as an end, then it is the servitude of love. This is because a friend serves and does good to his friend for the friend’s own sake, as the Philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics.

Third, the person writing is described by his dignity when it says he was called to be an apostle.

The apostolic dignity is the foremost in the Church, according to 1 Corinthians: God has appointed in the Church, first, apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28). For apostle means “sent”: As the Father has sent me, even so I send you (John 20:21)—that is, out of the same love and with the same authority.

Moreover, he says he was called to be an apostle for several reasons: to indicate it is a gift, for one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God as Aaron was (Hebrews 5:4); or to emphasize excellence, so that just as Rome is antonomastically called “the city,” so Paul is called “the apostle,” for I worked harder than any of them (1 Corinthians 15:10); or to show his humility, as if to say, “I do not dare to call myself an apostle, but others call me that,” for I am unfit to be called an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9).

Fourth, the person writing is described by his office when it says he was separated for the Gospel of God.

Separated, I say, from unbelievers by his conversion: but when he who had set me apart from my mother’s womb—that is, from the synagogue—called me (Galatians 1:15). Or, separated from other disciples by his being chosen: Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:2).

Gospel means “good news,” for it announces the news of humanity’s union with God, which is our good: it is good for me to cleave to God (Psalms 73:28).

Indeed, a threefold union of humanity with God is announced in the Gospel.

The first is by the grace of union: The Word was made flesh (John 1:14). The second is by the grace of adoption, as implied in the Psalm: I say, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you” (Psalms 82:6). The third is by the glory of attainment: This is eternal life, that they know you (John 17:3), and How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings (Isaiah 52:7).

This good news was not from men, but from God: What I have heard from the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you (Isaiah 21:10). Hence, Paul says he was separated for the Gospel of God.

Having described the writer, the Apostle now commends the task committed to him: the Gospel. The Gospel was already commended from two perspectives in the preceding verse. The first concerns its usefulness, based on its content, which is signified by its very name, Gospel, implying that good things are announced in it. The second is based on its authority, derived from its author, which is established when it says, of God (Romans 1:1).

The Apostle now develops these two commendations further:

• First, regarding its author.
• Second, regarding its content, at the phrase concerning his Son.

From the first viewpoint—that of its author—the Gospel is commended in four ways:

1. By its antiquity. This was necessary to counter the pagans, who scorned the Gospel as something that suddenly appeared after all the preceding centuries. To refute this, the Apostle says, which he had promised before. For although the Gospel began to be preached at a specific point in time, it had been divinely prophesied long before: before they came to pass, I announced them to you (Isaiah 48:5).

2. By its reliability. This is indicated when he says, he had promised, because the promise was made in advance by one who does not lie: we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled (Acts 13:32).

3. By the dignity of its ministers or witnesses, when he says, through his prophets, to whom the things fulfilled concerning the incarnate Word had been revealed: the Lord will not make a word—that is, make it become incarnate—without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7); to him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43).

   It is significant that he says, his prophets, for some prophets spoke by a human spirit: they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord (Jeremiah 23:16). For this reason, he says to Titus: one of themselves spoke, a prophet of their own (Titus 1:12). There are even prophets of demons who are inspired by an unclean spirit, such as the prophets whom Elijah slew (1 Kings 18:40). But those are called God’s prophets who are inspired by the divine Spirit: I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy (Joel 2:28).

4. By the way it was delivered, because these promises were not merely spoken but recorded in writing. Therefore he says, in the Scriptures: write the vision; make it plain upon tablets (Habakkuk 2:2). For it was the custom to record only important matters worthy of remembrance and of being handed down to later generations. Consequently, as Augustine says in City of God XVIII, the prophecies about Christ made by Isaiah and Hosea began to be written when Rome was being founded, under whose rule Christ would be born and his faith preached to the Gentiles: you search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life (John 5:39).

He adds holy to distinguish these writings from those of the Gentiles. They are called holy for three reasons. First, because, as it is written: men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21); all Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Second, because they contain holy things: give thanks to his holy name (Psalms 97:12). Third, because they make people holy: sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17). For this reason, it is said: we have as an encouragement the holy books that are in our hands .

Second, he continues the commendation based on the good things announced in the Gospel, which make up its content. This content is Christ, whom he commends in three ways:

1. From his origin.
2. From his dignity or power, at who was declared to be (Romans 1:4).
3. From his generosity, at through whom we have received (Romans 1:5).

He describes the origin of Christ in two ways. First, he describes his eternal origin when he says, concerning his Son. In this, he reveals the excellence of the Gospel, for the mystery of the eternal generation had been previously hidden. As Solomon asks: what is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know? (Proverbs 30:4). But it has been revealed in the Gospel on the testimony of the Father: this is my beloved Son (Matthew 3:17).

Indeed, the Son of God is deservedly called the subject matter of the Holy Scriptures, which reveal the divine wisdom, as Deuteronomy declares: this will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples (Deuteronomy 4:6). For the Son is said to be the Word and begotten wisdom: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

But people have erred in three ways about this sonship. Some, for example, said that he has an adoptive sonship. Photinus taught that Christ, as a mere man, derived his origin from the Virgin Mary and, by the merits of his life, reached such an exalted state that he could be called a Son of God above all other saints. But if this were true, Christ would not be described as lowering himself to manhood but as rising up to the Godhead, whereas it is said: I have come down from heaven (John 6:38).

Others taught that this sonship was a sonship in name only. Sabellius, for instance, said that the Father himself became incarnate and for that reason took the name of Son, so that the person would be the same and only the names different. But if this were true, the Son would not be described as sent by the Father, which is false, since he himself said that he came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent him (John 6:38).

Others, such as Arius, taught that this sonship was a created one, so that the Son of God would be the most perfect creature, although produced from nothing after previously not existing. But if this were true, all things would not have been made through him, the contrary of which is stated in John (John 1:3). For the one through whom all things were made cannot himself have been made.

These three opinions are excluded by the significantly added word, his, that is, his very own and natural Son. For Hilary says: “This true and personal Son is a Son by origin and not by adoption, in truth and not in name only, by birth and not by creation; for he comes forth from the Father as a word from the heart.” Such a word belongs to the same nature, especially in God, in whom nothing inheres accidentally. Therefore, he himself says, I and the Father are one (John 10:30). As Augustine says, “The fact that he says ‘one’ frees you from Arius; that he says ‘are’ frees you from Sabellius.”

Second, he touches on the temporal origin when he says, who was made. Here, the three previously mentioned errors seem to find a defense in the fact that it says, who was made for him. For they do not admit an eternal Son but one that was made. But the words that follow destroy their position.

When he says, who was made for him, the error of Sabellius is excluded. For he could not be made a Son for the Father if he were the same person as the Father; rather, through the Incarnation, he would be the Son of the Virgin.

By saying of the seed of David, he destroys the position of Photinus. For if he were made the Son of God by adoption, he would not be described as made from the seed of David but from the Spirit, who is the Spirit of adoption as sons (Romans 8:15), and from the seed of God (1 John 3:9).

The words, according to the flesh, destroy Arius’s opinion that he was created according to both the flesh and the divine nature.

We should also recall that people have erred in a number of ways regarding the mystery of the Incarnation itself. For Nestorius taught that the union of the Word with human nature consisted solely in an indwelling, in the sense that the Son of God dwelt in that man more fully than in others. But it is obvious that the substance of the one who dwells and that of the dwelling are distinct, like a man and a house. Accordingly, he taught that the person or hypostasis of the Word was distinct from that of the man, so that the Son of God would be one person and the Son of man another.

This is shown to be false by the fact that the Apostle in Philippians calls this sort of union an “emptying” of himself (Philippians 2:7). But since the Father and the Holy Spirit also dwell in human beings, as John declares, we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23), it would follow that they too would be emptying themselves, which is absurd. This opinion, therefore, is excluded when the Apostle says, concerning his Son who, as the Son of God, was made according to the flesh—that is, having his flesh of the seed of David. He would not have spoken this way if the union were a mere indwelling.

Furthermore, regarding others in whom the Word dwells, it is never said that the Word was made this or that person, but that the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah or Isaiah. Therefore, since the Apostle, after saying concerning his Son, added, who was made for him of the seed of David, the error of Nestorius is clearly excluded.

Others, while not proposing two persons in Christ, do propose two hypostases or supposita. But this amounts to the same thing, because a person is nothing other than a hypostasis or suppositum of a rational nature. Therefore, since there is only one hypostasis and suppositum in Christ—which is the suppositum or hypostasis of the eternal Word—that hypostasis cannot be said to have become the Son of God, because it never began to be the Son of God.

Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that a man was made God or the Son of God. Yet if this is found to be taught by any teacher, it should be interpreted to mean that it was brought about for that man to be God. Accordingly, it is correct to say that the Son of God was made man, because he was not always man. Therefore, what is written here must be understood so that the word who refers to the subject, the meaning being that this Son of God was made of the seed of David. It does not refer to the predicate, because then the meaning would be that someone existing from the seed of David became the Son of God, which is neither true nor correct, as has been said.

Again, there were others who taught that the union was made by the conversion of the Word into flesh, just as air is said to become fire. From this, Eutyches said that before the Incarnation there were two natures, but after the Incarnation, only one. But this is clearly false because, since God is immutable—I the Lord do not change (Malachi 3:6)—he cannot be changed into anything else. Therefore, when it is said, was made, this should not be understood as a change but as a union without any divine change.

Something can be newly said of a thing in a relative sense without the thing itself being changed. For example, a person who remains in one place newly comes to be on the right of an object that was moved from their right side to their left. In this way, God is said to be Lord or Creator from a certain time, namely, by reason of a change affecting the creature. In the same way, he is said to have been made something anew: Lord, you have been our dwelling place (Psalms 90:1). Therefore, since union is a relation, it is through a change in the creature that God is newly said to have been made man—that is, united in person to a human nature.

Finally, there were others, namely Arius and Apollinaris, who said that Christ had no soul, but that the Word was there in place of the soul. But this is refuted by John: no one takes my soul from me (John 10:18). The words, according to the flesh, do not exclude a soul from Christ; rather, flesh stands for the entire person, as in Isaiah: all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (Isaiah 40:5).

It may be asked why, since we believe that Christ was born of the Virgin, the Apostle says he was made from a woman. The answer is this: that which is produced in the natural order, like fruit from a tree or children from parents, is said to be born. That which is produced by the will of an agent, not according to the order of nature—like a house by a carpenter—is said to be made, not born.

Therefore, because Christ proceeded from the Virgin in the natural order in a certain respect—namely, that he was conceived from a woman and remained in her womb for nine months—it is true to say that he was born. But because he proceeded in another respect not in the natural order but solely from divine power without male seed, he is said to have been made. Thus, Eve is described as made, not born, from Adam; Isaac was born, not made, from Abraham.

Another question is why he is said to have descended of the seed of David in particular and not of the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises about Christ had been made: now the promises were made to Abraham (Galatians 3:16). The answer is that this was done to give hope of pardon to sinners, for David was a sinner from whose seed Christ was born, while Abraham was a just man. It was also done to commend Christ’s royal dignity to the Romans, who ruled the nations.

The Apostle’s words also exclude three errors of the Manicheans.

1. Their assertion that the God of the Old Testament and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are not the same. This is excluded when the Apostle says, which God had promised before, through his prophets, in the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, concerning his Son.

2. Their condemnation of the Old Testament writings, which the Apostle here calls holy. For no other writings were holy before the Gospel except those of the Old Testament.

3. Their claim that Christ had an imaginary body. This is excluded when the Apostle says that Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, for him—that is, for the glory of the Father: I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it (John 8:50).

Having commended Christ’s origin, the Apostle now commends His power, mentioning three things:

• First, His predestination, when he says, who was predestined.
• Second, His dignity or power, when he says, the Son of God in power.
• Third, the sign or effect, when he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification.

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the word ‘predestination’ comes from ‘destination,’ for something is said to be predestined as if it were destined beforehand. Destination, however, has two meanings. In one sense, to destine is to send, because those who are sent to achieve a purpose are said to be destined, according to 1 Maccabees: some of the people were destined, and they went to the king . In another sense, to destine is to determine, as in 2 Maccabees: Eleazar destined not to do any unlawful things .

This second meaning seems to be derived from the first. For just as a messenger who is sent is directed toward a goal, so too whatever we determine, we direct toward some end. According to this, therefore, to predestine is simply to determine beforehand in one’s heart what is to be done regarding something.

Now, someone can make a determination about a future thing or action in two ways: first, regarding its creation, as a builder determines how he will build a house; second, regarding the use or management of the thing, as when someone determines how to use his horse. Predestination pertains to this second kind of predetermination, not the first.

For whatever is used is directed toward an end, because, as Augustine says in his book, On Christian Doctrine: “to use is to refer something to an end to be enjoyed.” When a thing is made, however, it is not by that fact directed to something else. Therefore, the pre-determination of a thing’s creation cannot properly be called predestination.

Furthermore, because all natural things pertain to the make-up of the thing itself—since they are either the principles from which things are made or what follows from those principles—it follows that natural things do not properly fall under predestination. For example, it is not proper to say that a man is predestined to have hands. This leaves us with the conclusion that predestination, properly speaking, applies only to things that are above nature, toward which the rational creature is ordered.

But God alone is above the nature of the rational creature, who is united to Him by grace. This union occurs in several ways. In one way, it regards God’s own act, as when foreknowledge of the future, which belongs to God alone, is communicated to a person by the grace of prophecy. All the graces called “graces freely given” are of this sort. In another way, it regards God Himself, to whom the rational creature is united in a common manner through the effect of love: he who abides in love abides in God and God in him (1 John 4:16). This is done through sanctifying grace, which is the grace of adoption. In a third way, which is unique to Christ, it is done through a union in personal being; and this is called the grace of union.

Therefore, just as a person’s union with God through the grace of adoption falls under predestination, so also the union with God in person through the grace of union falls under predestination. And it is in regard to this that the Apostle says, who was predestined the Son of God.

But to prevent this from being referred to the sonship of adoption, he adds, in power. It is as if to say: He was predestined to be the kind of Son who has equal, indeed the same, power as God the Father. For as it is said: worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and divinity (Revelation 5:12). In fact, Christ Himself is the power of God: Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). Hence, whatever the Father does the Son does likewise (John 5:19).

Regarding the graces freely given, one is not said to be predestined in the strict sense, because such graces are not ordained to directly guide the one who receives them to his ultimate end, but rather to guide others by them, as it is said: to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7).

Now, it is clear that anything existing in itself serves as the measure and rule for things that exist through another and by participation. Hence, the predestination of Christ, who was predestined to be the Son of God by nature, is the measure and rule of our life and therefore of our predestination. For we are predestined to adoptive sonship, which is a participation and image of His natural sonship: whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29).

Therefore, just as the man Christ was not predestined to be the natural Son of God because of any preceding merits, but solely from grace, so we are predestined to be adopted sons of God solely from grace and not from our merits: do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you: ‘It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land’ (Deuteronomy 9:4).

It is clear, therefore, what the goal of that predestination is: namely, that one be a son of God in power.

But we must still inquire who it is that has been predestined to this.

Since predestination implies something coming before, it seems that the one predestined to be the Son of God in power was not always the Son of God in power; for predestination does not seem to concern what has always been, since that involves nothing antecedent. Hence, if we were to suppose, according to Nestorius, that the person of the Son of man were different from the person of the Son of God, there would be no problem. We could say that the created person of the Son of man did not exist eternally but began in time to be the Son of God in power.

The same would apply if one were to say the hypostasis or suppositum of the Son of God and of the Son of man were distinct. But this is contrary to the faith, as has been stated.

Therefore, since not only the person but also the hypostasis and suppositum of the Son of God and of the Son of man are the same, it cannot be truly and properly said that the Son of man was made the Son of God, lest this imply a created suppositum of whom “Son of God” would be newly predicated. For an equal reason, it does not seem possible to say that the Son of man was predestined to be the Son of God, because “the Son of man” presupposes the eternal suppositum, who was always the Son of God. Hence, the antecedence that predestination involves has no place here.

For this reason, Origen says that the text should not read, who was predestined, but, who was destined the Son of God in power, so that no antecedence is indicated. If this is accepted, the meaning is plain: Christ was destined, that is, sent into the world by God the Father as the true Son of God in divine power.

But because all the Latin texts generally have who was predestined, others have explained this according to the custom of Scripture, whereby something is considered to be made when it is made known. For example, the Lord says after the resurrection: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matthew 28:18), because it was after the resurrection that He made known that such power had been given to Him from eternity.

But if this is correct, the word predestined is not used in its proper sense, because predestination concerns matters pertaining to grace. Yet no grace was given to Christ by the fact that His divine power was made known; rather, grace was given to us. Hence, it is even stated in a Gloss that according to this sense, predestined is used in the wider sense of ‘foreknown,’ so that the meaning would be: Christ was predestined, that is, foreknown from eternity, to be revealed in time as the Son of God in power.

Therefore, others, relating predestination to the union itself, attributed it not to the person but to the nature. The sense would be: who was predestined the Son of God in power, meaning, whose nature was predestined to be united to Him who is the Son of God in power.

But even this explanation is improper and strained. For since predestination implies an ordering to an end, it affects that which is ordered to an end by its own activity. But it is the person that acts for an end, not the nature.

Therefore, if the word ‘predestination’ is taken in its strict sense, it must be attributed to the very person of Christ. But because the person of Christ subsists in two natures, the human and the divine, something can be said of Him with respect to either nature. Just as something can be said of a man regarding his body (for example, to be touched or wounded) and something regarding his soul (for example, to understand and to will), so too, something can be said of Christ regarding both His divine nature, as when He says, I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and His human nature, as when we say that He was crucified and died. It is in this way that He is said to be predestined according to His human nature. For although the person of Christ has always been the Son of God, it was not always a fact that, while existing in a human nature, He was the Son of God; rather, this was due to an ineffable grace.

There is another consideration concerning the participle made (Romans 1:3), which designates a real act, and the participle predestined, which designates an act of the soul.

The soul, through its intellect and reason, can distinguish things that are joined in reality. For one can think of a white wall and speak separately about the fact that it is a wall and separately about the fact that it is white. The same applies to predestination. Predestination can be attributed to the person of Christ inasmuch as He subsists in a human nature, even though it is not attributed to Him as subsisting in the divine nature.

This is why the Apostle first presents the Son of God as being incarnate and then attributes predestination to Him, to show that He was predestined according as He was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Romans 1:3). Thus, in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, he descends from the Son of God to the flesh and, from the flesh, ascends through predestination back to the Son of God. He does this to show that neither did the glory of the Godhead prevent the weakness of the flesh, nor did the weakness of the flesh diminish the majesty of the Godhead.

In the Gloss it is asked, first, whether Christ is the Son of God as He is man.

It seems so, because here is Christ, who was predestined to be the Son of God; but He was predestined to be the Son of God as He is a man. Therefore, as a man He is the Son of God.

However, I answer that if the word as denotes the unity of the person, it is true that as man He is the Son of God, because the person of God and man is one. But if it designates the condition of the nature or its cause, it is false, for it is not from the human nature that He is Son of God.

The argument contains a fallacy of composition and division. The word as can modify the participle predestined, and taken this way it is true that as man He is predestined. Or, it can modify the state of “being the Son of God” to which the predestination is ordered, and taken this way it is false. For He was not predestined that as man He be Son of God; and this is the sense of the words assumed by the argument.

The second question is whether Christ as man is a person.

I answer that if as refers to the very suppositum of the man, it must be admitted that this suppositum is a divine person. But if it designates the condition of the nature or the cause, taken this way Christ as man is not a person, because the human nature does not cause a new personhood in Christ. For it is joined to a nobler person into whose personhood it passes.

Likewise, an objection is made against a statement in the Gloss, namely, that the one who assumed and what he assumed are one person. But what the Son of God assumed is a human nature. Therefore, the human nature is a person.

I answer that such expressions must be explained so that the meaning is this: He who assumed and the nature He assumed are united in one person.

The fourth question is whether this is true: a man was assumed by the Word.

It would seem so, according to the Psalm: blessed is he whom you did choose and assume (Psalms 65:4).

I answer that since “a man” implies a suppositum—in this case, an eternal one—it cannot properly be said that a man was assumed by the Word, for the same thing is not assumed by itself. Hence, wherever the expression man was assumed is found, it is taken to mean the human nature.

The fifth question is whether this is true: this man has always existed.

The answer is that it is true, because “a man” supposes a suppositum, in this case an eternal one. Hence it is said: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). However, the statement is not true if “man” is taken precisely as man. For it is not true that that man, as man, has always existed, but only as He is Son of God.

So, the matters concerning the preordainment and power of the Son of God are clear.

But a third matter remains: the sign, which is mentioned when he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification.

It is characteristic of divine power to sanctify people by conferring the Holy Spirit: I am the Lord who sanctifies you (Leviticus 20:8). He alone can give the Holy Spirit: thus says God, the Lord who created the heavens... who gives breath to the people upon it and the Spirit to those who walk in it (Isaiah 42:5). Therefore, it is clear that Christ has divine power, because He gives the Holy Spirit: when the Counselor comes whom I shall send (John 15:26). Furthermore, it is by His power that we are sanctified: you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).

He says, therefore, that Christ is the Son of God in power and appears so according to the Spirit of sanctification, that is, inasmuch as He gives the sanctifying Spirit. This sanctification began by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39). However, this does not mean that no one had received the sanctifying Spirit before Christ’s resurrection, but that from the time He arose, a more copious and general Spirit of sanctification began to be given.

It can also mean that two signs of the divine power in Christ are designated here.

The first sign is from the phrase according to the Spirit of sanctification. This can be understood either as referring to the sanctifying Spirit, as has been explained, or in view of the fact that He was conceived in the Virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit—which is certainly a sign of the divine power in Him, according to the words of Luke: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and further on, therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

The second sign of the divine power is the raising of the dead: as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will (John 5:21).

The sense, therefore, is this: that Christ is the Son of God in power is evident from His resurrection from the dead, that is, from the fact that He made the dead rise with Him: many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised (Matthew 27:52), and will finally make all rise: all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth (John 5:28).

Alternatively, it can be understood of a spiritual resurrection of the dead, that is, from sin: awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead (Ephesians 5:14). Those who are raised by Him are called “Christ’s dead” because they are raised by Him, just as those under a doctor’s care are called his sick.

These two signs can be referred to two previous clauses in this way: who was made... of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Romans 1:3), and this was according to the Spirit of sanctification, from whom His flesh was conceived; and who was predestined the Son of God in power, and this is apparent in the resurrection of the dead.

But the first explanation is better.

After commending Christ for his origin and power, he now commends him for his generosity, which is shown by the gifts he bestowed on believers.

He presents two gifts.

One is common to all believers: the grace by which we are restored. We receive this from God through Christ. This is why he says, through whom we believers have received grace, as in, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He also says later, by whom also we have access through faith to this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:2).

For it is fitting that just as all things were made by the Word (John 1:3), so all things should be restored by the Word, as by the art of God Almighty. This is like an artisan who repairs a house using the same skill with which he built it: God was pleased to reconcile through him all things, whether on earth or in heaven (Colossians 1:20).

The other spiritual gift was given to the apostles. He touches on this when he says, and apostleship, which is the chief office in the Church: God has appointed in the Church, first, apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28).

“Apostle” means “one who is sent.” For they were sent by Christ, bearing his authority and office, so to speak: as the Father has sent me, even so I send you (John 20:21)—that is, with full authority. This is why Christ himself is called an apostle: consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession (Hebrews 3:1). Therefore, through him as the chief apostle, or the primary one sent, the others secondarily obtained their apostleship: he chose twelve whom he called apostles (Luke 6:13).

He presents the grace of apostleship as a preface, both because the apostles obtained their office not through their own merits but from grace—I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle; but by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Corinthians 15:9)—and because apostleship cannot be worthily received unless sanctifying grace precedes it: grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Ephesians 4:7).

Then he describes this apostleship, first, from its purpose, when he adds, for obedience to the faith. It is as if he is saying: We have been sent for this purpose, to lead people to obey the faith.

Obedience applies to things we can do voluntarily. In matters of faith, which are above reason, we also consent voluntarily, for as Augustine says, no one believes unless he wants to. Consequently, the following applies to matters of faith: but have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered (Romans 6:17). Concerning this purpose, it is said: I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide (John 15:16).

Second, it is described by its extent when he says in all the nations, because they were sent to instruct not only the Jews but all nations: go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19).

Paul in particular had received a mandate for all nations, so the words of Isaiah apply to him: it is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6). Yet the Jews were not excluded from his apostleship, especially those who lived among the Gentiles: inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them (Romans 11:13–14).

Third, it is described by the completeness of its power when he says for his name, that is, in his place and with his authority.

For just as Christ is said to have come in the Father’s name and had the Father’s full authority, so the apostles are said to have come in Christ’s name, as if in the person of Christ: what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10).

Alternatively, these words describe its ultimate goal: that is, to proclaim his name without seeking any earthly reward for oneself. As it is said of Paul, he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name (Acts 9:15). This is why he urged all believers to do the same: do everything in the name of Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:17).

Fourth, it is described by his power over those to whom he was writing, who were subject to his apostleship. This is why he says among whom, meaning, “I count even you Romans, however lofty you may be, among those subject to my apostleship.” This is in keeping with the scripture: he lays it low, the lofty city; the foot of the poor—that is, of Christ—tramples it, the steps of the needy—namely, of the apostles Peter and Paul (Isaiah 26:5 and following). He also says, we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:14).

He adds the called of Jesus Christ, in accordance with Hosea: I will call ‘not my people’ mine (Hosea 1:9). This can mean you are called so that you may belong to Jesus Christ, as is said later: those whom he predestined he also called (Romans 8:30). Or, it can mean you are called “of Jesus Christ” because you are named after Christ—that is, Christians, as in the account where the disciples were first named Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:21).

Next, the people being greeted are described. First, they are described by their location when he says to all who are in Rome.

He writes “to all” because he sought the salvation of everyone: I wish that all were as I myself am (1 Corinthians 7:7). This is also because the Lord had said to him, you must bear witness also at Rome (Acts 23:11).

Second, they are described by their gift of grace, the beloved of God.

This first mentions the primary source of grace, which is God’s love: he loved his people, all those consecrated to him were in his hand (Deuteronomy 33:3); and, not that we loved God first, but that he first loved us (1 John 4:10). For God’s love is not prompted by any goodness in a creature, as human love is. Rather, His love causes the creature’s goodness, because for God, to love is to will good to the one beloved. God’s love is the cause of all things: whatever the Lord desires, he makes (Psalms 135:6).

Second, he mentions their calling when he adds called.

This call is twofold. One is external, as when Christ called Peter and Andrew (Matthew 4:18–19), while the other is internal, coming from an inner inspiration: I called and you refused to listen (Proverbs 1:24).

Third, he mentions the grace of justification when he says to be saints, meaning, sanctified by grace and the sacrament of grace: but you were washed, you were sanctified (1 Corinthians 6:11), to be “beloved by God, called to be saints.”

Next, the blessings he wishes for them are mentioned. These are grace and peace. Grace is the first of God’s gifts, because by it the sinner is made holy: they are justified by his grace as a gift (Romans 3:24). Peace is his final gift, which is completed in eternal happiness: he makes peace in your borders (Psalms 147:14). For perfect peace will exist when the will is at rest in the fullness of all good, a state that results from being free from all evil: my people will abide in the beauty of peace (Isaiah 32:18).

Consequently, all the blessings that lie between these two are understood to be included.

Then he shows from whom these blessings are to be expected when he adds from God our Father. For every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (James 1:17), and the Lord bestows grace and glory (Psalms 84:11).

He adds and from the Lord Jesus Christ because, as it is said, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17), and Christ himself says, my peace I give to you (John 14:27).

The phrase God our Father can be understood to refer to the whole Trinity. The Trinity is called “Father” because names implying a relationship to the creature, such as Creator and Lord, are common to all three persons.

However, he adds and from the Lord Jesus Christ not to imply that Christ is another person distinct from the Trinity, but to emphasize the human nature through whose mystery the gifts of grace come to us: through whom he has granted to us his precious and very great promises (2 Peter 1:4).

Alternatively, it could be said that the phrase from God our Father refers to the person of the Father, who is properly called the Father of Christ but is called our Father by appropriation: I am ascending to my Father and your Father (John 20:17).

Then the person of the Son is indicated when he says, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. The person of the Holy Spirit is not explicitly mentioned, because He is understood to be present in His gifts of grace and peace. He is also understood whenever the Father and the Son are mentioned, for He is their union and bond.

After the greeting, the Apostle begins the message, in which he first shows his affection for his readers to make them receptive hearers, and second, instructs them in the truth about the power of Christ’s grace, as in the verse, for it is the power of God.

He shows his affection for them in three ways:

1. By giving thanks for their blessings.

2. By the prayer he directs to God on their behalf, as in the verse, for God is my witness.

3. By his desire to visit them, as in the verse, always in my prayers.

Regarding the first point, three things should be noted.

First is the order in which he gives thanks, when he says, first, I give thanks to my God. It is necessary that in all our affairs, we begin by giving thanks: give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Indeed, a person is not worthy to receive a blessing if he does not express thanks for past blessings: the hope of an ungrateful man will melt like wintry frost . And to the place where the streams flow, there they return (Ecclesiastes 1:7), because blessings return to the source from which they come—that is, by giving thanks—so that they may flow again through repeated blessings.

But we need God’s blessing in all we seek or do; consequently, thanks should be given before all else.

Second, he designates three persons. The first is the person to whom thanksgiving is made, when he says my God, to whom thanks are due for all our blessings because they flow from him: every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above (James 1:17). And although he is God of all through creation and governance, as is said later, Lord of all (Romans 10:12), he is particularly the God of the just for three reasons:

1. Because of the special care he shows them: the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous (Psalms 34:15) and again, the Lord is my light (Psalms 27:1).

2. Because of their special worship: this is my God and I will praise him (Exodus 15:2).

3. Because he is their reward: I am your reward exceedingly great (Genesis 15:1).

The second person is the mediator, whom he mentions when he says through Jesus Christ. For thanks should be returned to God in the same order in which graces come to us, namely, through Jesus Christ: through him we have access to this grace in which we stand (Romans 5:2).

The third is the person for whom he gives thanks, for all of you, because he regarded their graces as his own on account of the bond of love. It is as if to say: I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth (3 John 1:4).

He purposely says for all of you because he desires to please them all—just as I try to please all men in everything I do (1 Corinthians 10:33)—and wishes the salvation of all: I wish that all were as I myself am (1 Corinthians 7:7).

Third, he indicates the reason for his gratitude: because your faith is proclaimed in the whole world.

He gives thanks for their faith because it is the foundation of all spiritual blessings: faith is the assurance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11:1).

The reason he commends the Romans on their faith is that they embraced it with ease and continued in it firmly. Hence, as Jerome says in his commentary on Galatians, even today many signs of their faith are seen by those who visit the holy places. However, their faith was not yet perfect, because some of them had been reached by false apostles, who taught that the rites of the law must be joined to the Gospel.

But he rejoices and gives thanks for their faith not only on their account but also because of the benefits that result from it. Specifically, because they were the rulers of the world, their example would lead other nations to accept the faith; for, as a Gloss says, the lesser are quick to do what they see done by the greater. For this reason, church leaders are advised to be examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:3).

Then, when he says for God is my witness, he shows his affection for them through the prayer he offers for them.

And because the business of prayer is conducted in secret in God’s presence—when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret (Matthew 6:6)—he calls on God to testify that he prays for them.

First, therefore, he calls on the witness; second, he shows on what point he calls the witness.

He calls on the witness when he says God is my witness, under whose witness all things are done: I am judge and witness (Jeremiah 29:23).

Then, to show that he is not mistaken in calling on the just witness, he mentions how he is joined to him. First, in regard to service, when he says whom I serve, namely, with the worship of latria: you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve (Deuteronomy 6:13). Second, in regard to the way he served, when he says, in my spirit. It is as if to say: not only in outward bodily service, but especially within, according to the spirit: God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Or in spirit, that is, in spiritual observances, not in carnal ones like the Jews: we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit (Philippians 3:3). Third, in regard to the office in which he serves, namely, in the Gospel of his Son: separated for the Gospel of God (Romans 1:1). It is the Gospel of the Son in three ways: first, because it is about him: I bring you good news of a great joy (Luke 2:10). Second, because it was preached by him as a special duty: I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose (Luke 4:43). Third, because it was commanded by him: preach the Gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15).

But since, as Augustine says, saying for God is my witness is the same as saying, “I swear by God,” the Apostle seems to be acting against the Lord’s command: I say to you, do not swear at all (Matthew 5:34); and above all, my brethren, do not swear (James 5:12).

However, as Augustine also says, the meaning of Sacred Scripture is gathered from the actions of the saints. For it is the same Spirit who inspired the Sacred Scriptures—men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21)—and who moves holy men to act: for all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Romans 8:14).

Consequently, if Paul is found to swear, it shows that the Lord’s word and that of the apostle James are not to be understood as indicating that an oath is absolutely unlawful. Rather, they mean that people should strive as far as possible not to use oaths as though they were something good and desirable in their very nature. This is because of the danger involved in frequent swearing, namely, the possibility of perjury from a slip of the tongue. The book of Sirach says, Do not accustom your mouth to oaths, for many are tripped by them . It is also because it seems contrary to the reverence we owe God to call on him as a witness without necessity. Hence: let not the naming of God be habitual in your mouth . For this reason, the Apostle never made an oath except in writing, when a man speaks with greater deliberation and caution.

Yet an oath is sometimes necessary to give credibility to a speaker, which in turn often benefits the hearer. Consequently, the Apostle makes an oath for the benefit of his hearers, for whom it was beneficial to believe, as he was seeking not his own benefit but that of the majority, namely, their salvation.

Hence, the Lord’s statement that anything more than this—that is, than a simple “yes” or “no”—comes from evil (Matthew 5:37) does not imply that it comes from evil in the one who swears, but in the one who demands the oath. It comes not from the evil of sin, except in the case where a person judges that the one from whom he demands the oath will swear falsely—in which case it is a serious sin, as Augustine says. Rather, it implies that it comes from the evil of punishment, that is, our ignorance of whether something said to us is true.

It should be noted that there are two ways of making an oath. One is by a simple statement, as when one says “by God” or God is my witness. This is the form the Apostle uses here. The other is by an imprecation, namely, when a person calls on God’s witness in the form of some punishment to be inflicted on the speaker if he is lying: if I have repaid my friend with evil (Psalms 7:4 and following). The Apostle also uses this form, as in 2 Corinthians: I call God to witness against my soul (2 Corinthians 1:23).

Then he mentions the matter concerning which he calls God to witness when he says, that without ceasing I make mention of you. This means that in his prayers he always prayed for them because of the general benefits that arose from their conversion: far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you (1 Samuel 12:23).

The statement I make mention of you can be understood in two ways. One way is according to the sense of a psalm: let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you (Psalms 137:6). In another way, I make mention of you means I pray to God, who receives the prayers of the humble. Therefore, when the saints pray for certain people, they are somehow presented to his gaze, just as their other actions are. Hence, the woman said to Elijah: you have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance (1 Kings 17:18), as though whatever is done against the just is in the memory and eyes of God.

That he claims to pray without ceasing is in agreement with what he tells the Thessalonians—pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17)—and with Luke: they ought always to pray and not lose heart (Luke 18:1).

This can be understood in three ways. First, regarding the act of praying itself; one is praying always or without ceasing if he prays at the appointed times and hours: Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (Acts 3:1). Second, regarding the purpose of prayer, which is that our mind rise up to God; and so a man prays as long as he directs his entire life to God: so, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Third, regarding the cause; for when a person acts in such a way that others pray for him, he seems to be praying himself, as in the case of those who give alms to the poor who pray for them: store up almsgiving in your treasury .

Therefore, he says, I give thanks to my God for you because I regard your blessings as my own. This is obvious from the fact that I pray for you as I do for myself.

Then, when he says, making a request, he proves his affection by his desire to visit them.

First, he mentions the desire; second, his intention of acting on this desire, at I want you to know.

In regard to the first, he does two things: first, he mentions a sign of this desire; second, the cause of his desire, at for I long.

The sign of the desire is the prayer he offered for them, which implies such a desire.

That the desire itself was intense is shown when he says making a request for something very important which is beyond my merits: the poor use entreaties, but the rich answer roughly (Proverbs 18:23). For something intensely desired seems great to the one desiring it.

Second, it is an anxious desire, for he says if by any means. For if a person anxiously desires something, he seeks to get it by any means, easy or difficult: what then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice (Philippians 1:18–19).

Third, the desire was of long standing, for he says now at last, that is, after long desiring it. For the just are concerned not for a short time but continuously: a friend loves at all times (Proverbs 17:17).

Fourth, the desire was correct, because it was in keeping with God’s will. Hence he adds, that by God's will I may somehow at last succeed in coming to you, that is, in keeping with his will, by which I judge success: not as I will, but as you will (Matthew 26:39).

Then when he says for I long to see you, he mentions the two causes of his desire.

The first is the welfare of those he would visit; hence, I long to see you—I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:8)—not for a trivial reason as in worldly friendship, but that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, not as its author but as its minister: one should regard us as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1). And this is to strengthen you in the faith you have received: when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:32).

Now a minister imparts grace in a number of ways, one of which is by the administration of the sacraments of grace: as each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace (1 Peter 4:10). Another is by exhorting in sermons: let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up... that it may give grace to those who hear (Ephesians 4:29).

The second cause is the mutual consolation found in friendly communication. Hence he continues, that is, that we may be mutually encouraged, meaning, I by seeing you and imparting a grace, and all of us by each other's faith, both yours and mine.

For it is a source of mutual consolation to be one in the faith: but God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not only by his coming but also by the comfort with which he was comforted by you (2 Corinthians 7:6–7).

Then when he says I want you to know, he mentions his intention to fulfill his plan, lest it appear to be a vain desire.

First, he mentions his plan; second, its cause, at that I might have some fruit; third, his eagerness, at so, for my part.

In regard to the first, he does two things: first, he mentions his plan; second, the obstacle, at but thus far have been prevented.

He says, therefore, first: not only do I desire to see you, but I have decided to fulfill this desire, and I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you to prove my love not in word or talk but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).

Second, he touches on the obstacle preventing him from having fulfilled that intention, saying, but thus far have been prevented, either by the devil, who endeavors to prevent the preaching from which man’s salvation results—the north wind brings forth rain (Proverbs 25:23), i.e., it drives away the doctrines of the preachers—or perhaps by God, by whose will the journeys and words of preachers are arranged: the clouds scatter his lightning. They turn round and round by his guidance, to accomplish all that he commands them (Job 37:11 and following). Hence in Acts it is recorded: they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia (Acts 16:6); and again: they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.

But the Apostle wants them to know both these things for their own benefit, so that seeing his affection, they might receive his words with more reverence, and recognizing their own conduct as the obstacle that until now prevented his visit, they might amend their lives. So the words of Isaiah express a punishment for sin: I will command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it (Isaiah 5:6).

Then he gives two reasons for his intention. The first is utility; hence he says his intention is that I might have some fruit among you also.

This can be taken in two ways: in one way, as though he were saying that he might reap some harvest among them by his preaching: you should go and bear fruit (John 15:16). In another way, as though a harvest would grow for him from their conversion: he who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life (John 4:36).

The other reason is the duty of his office: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel! (1 Corinthians 9:16).

And because he had undertaken the general apostolate to the Gentiles, he asserts that he is under obligation to all: though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all (1 Corinthians 9:19).

For this reason he sets out two distinctions. One is along the lines of the diversity of nations, when he says, to Greeks and to barbarians.

A person is called a barbarian either because he is cut off from some people in one way or another, in the sense of 1 Corinthians: if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a barbarian to the speaker and the speaker a barbarian to me (1 Corinthians 14:11); or because he is cut off from the human race, insofar as he is not ruled by reason. Hence, those who are not directed by reason are properly called barbarians. This is implied in 2 Maccabees: do not act so fiercely and barbarously , that is, inhumanly.

Now because the Greeks were the first to establish laws, he calls all the Gentiles ruled by human laws Greeks.

He makes no mention of the Jews, who were ruled by divine laws, because he was not appointed apostle to the Jews but to the Gentiles: we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Galatians 2:9).

Both reasons account for his readiness of will, so that he says so, for my part, that is, as far as I am concerned, I am eager, unless prevented, to preach the Gospel to you also who are in Rome: then all the congregation of the people of Israel departed from the presence of Moses. And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him (Exodus 35:20–21).

He rejects the obstacle to eagerness, namely shame, on account of which many fail to do what they would otherwise do readily. Hence he says, I am not ashamed of the Gospel. Indeed, the Gospel seemed to be an occasion of shame for some in the presence of unbelievers, as he states in 1 Corinthians: we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:23). But there is really no reason for shame, because he continues: but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Hence it is said: whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed (Luke 9:26).

That is why the baptized are anointed with chrism in the form of a cross on the forehead, where the sense of shame resides, namely, so that they might not be ashamed of the Gospel.