Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 9

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

First, therefore, he discusses the election of the Gentiles, and second, the fall of the Jews, which begins at the words, brethren, the will of my heart (Romans 10:1).

Regarding the election of the Gentiles, he does two things:

1. He recounts the greatness of the Jews.
2. He shows how the Gentiles have been drawn into that greatness, starting at the words, not as though the word of God has failed (Romans 9:6).

Regarding the greatness of the Jews, he again does two things:

1. The Apostle shows his affection for the Jewish people, so that nothing he had said or was about to say against them would seem to proceed from hatred.
2. He shows their dignity, starting at the words, who are Israelites.

Concerning his affection, he does two things:

1. He confirms what he was about to say.
2. He demonstrates his affection, starting at the words, that I have great sadness.

Concerning the first point, he does two things.

1. He confirms what he is about to say with a simple assertion, I speak the truth, which especially befits a preacher who is a witness to the truth: my mouth will utter truth (Proverbs 8:7); love truth and peace (Zechariah 8:19). Because a person sometimes mixes falsehood with the truth, he excludes this by adding, I am not lying, as in, putting away falsehood, let everyone speak the truth to his neighbor (Ephesians 4:25).
2. He confirms what he is about to say with an oath, which is a confirmation supported by the testimony of infallible truth. The witnesses of the saints are of this kind.
   1. First is God himself, as it says in Job: my witness is in heaven (Job 16:19). Therefore, Paul says, in Christ, that is, through Jesus Christ who is truth without falsehood: the Son of God whom we preached among you was not yes and no (2 Corinthians 1:19).
   2. Second, the infallible witness of the saints is their conscience; hence he adds, my conscience bearing me witness, as in, our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience (2 Corinthians 1:12). But because one’s conscience is sometimes mistaken unless it is corrected by the Holy Spirit, he adds, in the Holy Spirit, as in, the Spirit himself gives testimony to our spirit (Romans 8:16).

He then shows his affection for the Jews by the pain he suffered from their fall, when he says, that I have great sadness. In this, he does two things:

1. He describes this pain.
2. He mentions a sign of it, when he says, for I wished myself.

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

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

   This, however, seems to conflict with Sirach, where it says, do not give your soul to sadness , which appears to agree with the opinion of the Stoics, who admitted no sadness at all in the soul of a wise person. Since sadness is a reaction to a present evil, they argued it cannot exist in a wise person, to whom no evil is present. They supposed that virtue was the only good and sin the only evil.

   But this opinion is refuted in two ways.

   • First, bodily defects, although they are not evils that make people evil, are nevertheless among the evils that nature abhors. Hence, even the Lord is described as being saddened by them: my soul is sorrowful, even to death (Matthew 26:38).
   • Second, since charity requires that a person love their neighbor as themself, it is praiseworthy for a wise person to grieve over the sin of their neighbor as over their own. Therefore, the Apostle says: I fear that I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned (2 Corinthians 12:21).

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

2. He emphasizes his grief by its duration, when he says, and continual sorrow. This does not mean he never ceased to grieve in actuality, but that he did so habitually: that I might weep day and night for the slain of my people (Jeremiah 9:1).
3. He emphasizes how real it was when he says, in my heart, for it was not superficial but rooted in the heart: my eyes are spent with weeping... my heart is poured out in grief (Lamentations 2:11).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He shows their greatness in four ways:

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

2. From God’s blessings upon that race. First are the spiritual blessings. One refers to the present: to whom belongs the adoption of sons of God. As it says in Exodus: Israel is my son, my firstborn (Exodus 4:22). This refers to the spiritual people who arose among that nation; but concerning worldly people, he stated above that they received the spirit of slavery in fear (Romans 8:15). Another spiritual blessing refers to the future: the glory, namely, the glory of the sons of God promised to them. A reference to this is found in Exodus: the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Exodus 40:32).

   Then he sets out other, symbolic benefits, three of which are figures of present spiritual benefits. The first of these is the covenant, that is, the pact of circumcision given to Abraham, as is recorded in Genesis 17. This could also refer to the new covenant preached first to the Jews. Thus, the Lord himself said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24), and Jeremiah said, I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31). The second is the law given through Moses; hence, he continues, the giving of the law, as in, Moses commanded a law to us . The third is divine worship: the service with which they served God, while all the other nations were serving idols: but now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen (Isaiah 44:1).

   Finally, he mentions the blessing which pertains to future glory: and the promises. The promises made in the Old Testament and fulfilled by Christ seem to have been made especially to the Jews. Thus, he says below: I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs (Romans 15:8). Many other promises were also made to them about earthly goods, as is recorded in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 18, but spiritual things were prefigured by these temporal goods.

3. By their origin, because they were begotten according to the flesh by those ancestors who were especially acceptable to God: I love your fathers and chose their descendants after them (Deuteronomy 4:37); like the first fruit on the fig tree I saw their fathers (Hosea 9:1).
4. From a descendant, when he says, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who says, salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22).

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

In these words, four heresies are refuted:

1. The Manichean heresy, which held that Christ had not a true but an imaginary body. This is refuted when he says, according to the flesh. For Christ has true flesh, as it says in Luke: a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have (Luke 24:39).
2. The heresy of Valentinus, which claims that Christ’s body was not taken from the human line but brought from heaven. This is excluded when he says that Christ was from the Jews according to the flesh, in keeping with Matthew: the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1).
3. The heresy of Nestorius, according to whom the Son of Man was other than the Son of God. Against this, the Apostle says here that the one who is from the fathers, Christ, according to the flesh, is the same one who is over all things, God.
4. The Arian heresy, which claimed that Christ was less than the Father and created from nothing. Against the first claim, he says that Christ is over all things; against the second, that he is blessed forever. For it is true of God alone that His goodness remains forever.

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

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

• Second, he shows that this selection applies generally to both Jew and Gentile, in the words, even us, whom he has also called (Romans 9:24).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

• First, he shows how people obtain spiritual greatness from God’s choice.

• Second, he raises a question about the justice of God’s choice, with the question, what shall we say then? (Romans 9:14).

Regarding the first of these, he does two things:

• First, he states his proposition.

• Second, he demonstrates it, beginning with, but in Isaac.

Concerning the first of these, he does two things:

• First, he sets out the firmness of the divine election.

• Second, he shows in whom it is accomplished, with the words, for all are not Israelites.

First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the promises, the adoption of sons, and the glory referred to a people whose fall is a source of great sadness and unceasing sorrow to me. But it is not as though the word of God has failed; that is, it was not frustrated. For although it has not found a place in those who had fallen, it has a place in others: the word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose (Isaiah 55:11); forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed (Psalms 119:89).

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

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

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

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

Then he clarifies his statement, beginning with, but in Isaac.

• First, in regard to Abraham.

• Second, in regard to Jacob, at and not only this.

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

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

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

To understand this, it should be noted that the Apostle says in Galatians: Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave, namely, Ishmael, was born according to the flesh (Galatians 4:22), because he was born according to the law and custom of the flesh from a young woman. But the son of the free woman, namely, Isaac, was born through 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 barren, old woman (Genesis 18:10), although he was born "according to the flesh" in the sense that he received the substance of his flesh from his parents.

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

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

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

Then he clarifies his thesis as it concerns Jacob, when he says, and not only this.

• First, he states his intention.

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

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

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

But one could have ascribed this difference to their mothers, since Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman. Or, it could be ascribed to the changed meriting state of the father, because he fathered Ishmael while uncircumcised but fathered Isaac after he was circumcised. To exclude any such evasion, therefore, he cites the case where one is chosen and the other rejected, even though both were born of the same father and the same mother at the same time and, indeed, from one conception.

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

• First, by the authority of Genesis (Genesis 25:24).

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

Regarding the first, he does three things. First, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when the children were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other by virtue of the promise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In one way, it can be understood as referring to the persons involved. In this case, Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, in that the persecution he launched against him ended up benefiting Jacob, as it says in Proverbs: the fool will serve the wise (Proverbs 11:29).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now these words of the Apostle identify three things in God pertaining to the saints: election, love, and predestination. In God, these are really the same, but in our understanding, they differ. It is called God’s love insofar as he wills good to a person absolutely. It is election insofar as, through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. It is called predestination insofar as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions, predestination comes after love, just as the will’s focus on an end naturally precedes the process of directing things toward that end.

Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in humans. In humans, election precedes love, for a person’s will is inclined to love something on account of the good perceived in it. This good is also the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixes his love on the thing he preferred. But God’s love is the cause of every good found in a creature. Therefore, the good by virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows from God’s willing it—which pertains to his love. Consequently, God does not love a person by virtue of some good which he selects in him; rather, it is because he loved him that he prefers him to another by election.

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

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

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

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

After showing that by God’s choice one person is preferred to another—not based on works but on the grace of the one calling—the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice.

He proceeds in three steps:

1. First, he raises a question.
2. Second, he answers it, beginning with, God forbid! For he says to Moses.
3. Third, he raises an objection to his own solution, starting with, You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault?”

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

It seems so, because justice requires that equals be treated equally. But when differences arising from merit are removed, all people are equal. Therefore, if God dispensed unequally by choosing one and rejecting another without considering their merits, it seems there is injustice in him. This would contradict what is said in Deuteronomy: God is faithful and without any iniquity (Deuteronomy 32:4), and in the Psalms: Righteous are you, O LORD, and your judgments are right (Psalms 119:137).

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

In his book On First Principles, he claims that from the beginning God made only spiritual creatures, and all were equal, so that he could not be charged with injustice for any inequality. Later, differences among these creatures arose from differences in merit. Some of those spiritual creatures turned to God by love—some more and some less—and on this basis the various orders of angels were distinguished. Others turned away from God—some more and some less—and on this basis they were bound to bodies, whether noble or lowly. Some were bound to heavenly bodies, some to the bodies of demons, and some to the bodies of men. Accordingly, the reason for creating and distinguishing bodily creatures is the sin of spiritual creatures. But this contradicts what is said in Genesis: God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good (Genesis 1:31). This verse helps us understand that goodness was the cause of producing bodily creatures, as Augustine says in The City of God.

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

In this regard, he does two things:

1. First, he solves the problem with respect to the election of the saints.
2. Second, he addresses the hatred and rejection of the wicked, beginning with, For the Scripture says.

Regarding the first point, he also does two things:

1. First, he presents the scriptural text from which the solution comes.
2. Second, he draws a conclusion from it, starting with, So then it depends not on him.

The text he cites is from Exodus, where the Lord said to Moses: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy (Exodus 33:19). The Apostle, however, quotes it according to the Septuagint version, saying: For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” The meaning is that all our blessings are ascribed to God’s mercy, as it says in Isaiah: I will remember the steadfast love of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD has granted us (Isaiah 63:7); and in Lamentations: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his compassion never fails (Lamentations 3:22).

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

First: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, meaning, on the one who is worthy of mercy. To amplify this, he repeats: I will have compassion on whom I have compassion, meaning, on whom I judge worthy of compassion, as it says in a psalm: The LORD has compassion on those who fear him (Psalms 103:13).

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

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

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

There is another way in which one is considered worthy of mercy: not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits subsequent to grace. For example, God gives a person grace, having planned from eternity to give that grace which he foresaw would be used well.

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

But it seems that not even this is a suitable explanation. For it is clear that nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for predestination, even if it is considered as existing in God’s foreknowledge. This is because the reason for predestination is presupposed to predestination, whereas the effect is included in it.

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

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

Since a person is open to opposites—for example, to sitting or not sitting—the choice must be resolved by something else. This is done by deliberation, which is followed by choosing one option over the other. But again, since a person has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, something must move him to deliberate. Since this cannot proceed infinitely, there must be some external principle superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle is none other than God.

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

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

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

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

Thus, the Apostle solves the question with a text that ascribes everything to divine mercy.

Yet it should be noted that God’s mercy is viewed in three aspects:

1. First, according to predestination, by which he proposed from all eternity to deliver certain ones: The mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalms 103:17).
2. Second, according to his calling and justifying, by which he saves people in time: He saved us, according to his own mercy (Titus 3:5).
3. Third, according to the bestowal of glory, when he frees from all misery: Who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy (Psalms 103:4).

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

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

Then he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited, when he says, So then it depends not on him.

This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways. One way is this: so a person’s salvation is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs—that is, it is not owed to anyone through any willing of their own or any outward action. This running is spoken of in 1 Corinthians: So run that you may obtain it (1 Corinthians 9:24). But of God who shows mercy—that is, it proceeds from the sole mercy of God. What follows from the authority cited is found in Deuteronomy: Do not say in your heart, “It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land” (Deuteronomy 9:4).

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

But if this is all that is understood by this statement—since even grace without a person’s free judgment does not will or strive—he could have said the converse: that salvation does not depend on God’s mercy but on a person’s will or exertion, which is offensive to pious ears.

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

An action is attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary one, just as we say that the hammer does not make the box, but the carpenter does by using the hammer. But a person’s will is moved to good by God, as it says above: All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Romans 8:14). Therefore, a person’s inward action is not to be attributed principally to the person but to God: It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).

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

The answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, since each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so a person is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depend on the person as a freely acting agent, but on God—and not on the person—as the initial mover.

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

First, he quotes an authority.

Second, he draws the conclusion, at Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills.

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

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

This interpretation can also be obtained from the version which reads: have I raised you up, meaning, although before me you deserved to be dead, I granted you life, as if I had raised you up. From this it appears that God works no injustice against the rejected, since they deserved to be destroyed at once for their crimes. Rather, the fact that he preserves their life proceeds from his exceeding goodness: Correct me, O LORD, but in justice; not in your anger, lest you bring me to nothing (Jeremiah 10:24).

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

But it seems to me that still more must be understood here: namely, that people are moved to good and to evil by God through an inward prompting. Hence, Augustine says in his book On Grace and Free Will that God works in people’s hearts to incline their wills wherever he wills, either to good through his mercy or to evil according to their deserts. Thus, God is very often said to stir up people to do good, as it says in Daniel: The Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young boy (Daniel 13:45). He is also said to raise up others to do evil, as in Isaiah: I will stir up the Medes against them... with their arrows they shall kill the children (Isaiah 13:17).

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

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

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

One must remember that God works in creatures to manifest himself, as it says in Romans: His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Romans 1:20). Hence, these promptings are ordained to this manifestation both for those present—for the very purpose of showing my power in you; and Israel saw the great work that the LORD did against the Egyptians (Exodus 14:31)—and for those absent—so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth; Declare his glory among the nations (Psalms 96:3).

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

Then when he says, Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited. From the statement, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, he concludes: therefore he has mercy on whom he wills; The LORD has mercy on those who fear him (Psalms 103:11). From the text, have I raised you up, he concludes, and he hardens whomever he wills; You have hardened our heart, so that we fear you not (Isaiah 63:17); Some of them he blessed and exalted... and some of them he has cursed and brought low .

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

But two difficulties seem to exist regarding hardening.

First, hardening of the heart seems related to sin, as it says in Sirach: A hard heart will have evil at the last . Consequently, if God hardens the heart, he is the author of sin—contrary to what is said in James: God is not a tempter to evil (James 1:13).

The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as if he causes their malice, but indirectly. This happens when a person makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside him, and this God himself permits. Hence, God is not said to harden by inserting malice, but by not providing grace.

The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: This is the will of God, your sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:3) and He desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

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

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

Having answered the proposed question, the Apostle raises an objection to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills (Romans 9:18).

First, he presents the objection; second, he presents the solution, beginning with O man, who are you.

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

Alternatively, the phrase why does he still find fault? could mean: why does God complain about people when they sin, as in Isaiah: some have I raised and brought up, but they have rebelled against me (Isaiah 1:2)? Therefore, He does not seem to have a just complaint, because it all proceeds from His will, which no one can resist. Hence he adds: who resists his will?

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

Then he answers the question, beginning with the phrase O man, who are you.

To understand his answer, it should be noted that two questions can arise concerning the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked. One is general: why does God will to harden some and be merciful to others? The other is particular: why does He will to be merciful to this person and harden that one?

Although a reason other than God’s will can be given for the first question, the only reason that can be given for the second is God’s absolute will. An example can be found among humans. If a builder has many similar stones, the reason he puts some at the top and others at the bottom can be understood from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason he put these particular stones on top and those others at the bottom seems to be simply because the builder willed it.

Therefore, the Apostle first answers the problem in the second question, namely, why He has mercy on this person and hardens that one. Second, he answers the problem in the first question, namely, why He is merciful to some and hardens others, beginning with the phrase what if God.

In regard to the first problem, he does three things:

1. He censures the questioner’s presumption.
2. He cites an authority that solves the question, with the words shall the thing formed say to him who formed it.
3. He explains the authority, with the words or has not the potter power.

First, therefore, he says: O man, who are you, fragile and unknowing, who replies against God? How would you answer Him, if He were to contend with you in judgment? If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times (Job 9:3). Again, as it says in Job: he who argues with God, let him answer him (Job 40:2).

From this, we are to understand that a person should not scrutinize the reason for God’s judgments with the intent of fully comprehending them, for they exceed human reason: seek not the things that are too high for you ; he who is a searcher of majesty will be overwhelmed by glory (Proverbs 25:27).

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

Here it should be noted that if an artisan uses base material to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all credited to the artisan's goodness; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such a base material like clay, he produced a vessel adapted for common uses, such as for cooking, the vessel, if it could think, would have no reason to complain. But it could complain if, from precious metals such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses.

But human nature has a baseness to it from its material origin, because as Genesis says: God formed man of dust from the ground (Genesis 2:7), and even more baseness after being corrupted by sin, which entered this world through one man. This is why humanity is compared to dirt, in Job: I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes (Job 30:19). Hence, any good that a person possesses is due to God’s goodness as its ultimate source: O Lord, you are our Father, we are the clay, and you are the potter, we are all the work of your hands (Isaiah 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance a person to better things but leaves them in their weakness and reserves them for the lowliest use, He does them no injury for which they could justly complain against God.

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

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

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

Then, when he says what if God, willing, he answers the first question: why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness—that is, to choose some and reject others.

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

But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in only one way or through a single creature. Consequently, He created diverse creatures in which He is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true for rational creatures, in whom His justice is manifested toward those He punishes according to what they deserve, and His mercy is manifested in those He delivers by His grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in humanity, He mercifully delivers some, but not all.

First, therefore, he gives an account of the rejection of the wicked; second, he addresses the election of the good, beginning with the phrase that he might show the riches.

In both cases, three distinctions should be considered: first, regarding the purpose; second, regarding the use; and third, regarding the divine act.

Now, the purpose of the rejection or hardening of the wicked is the manifestation of divine justice and power. Referring to this he says: what (meaning, but) if God, willing to show his wrath, that is, His retributive justice. For wrath is spoken of in relation to God not as an emotion but as the effect of His retribution: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven (Romans 1:18). Then he adds: and to make his power known, because God not only uses wrath, that is, retribution, by punishing those subject to Him, but also by subjecting them to Himself by His power: according to his work by which he can subject all things to himself (Philippians 3:21); and they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them (Exodus 14:31).

The use God makes of the wicked is for wrath, that is, punishment. This is why he calls them vessels of wrath, meaning instruments of justice that God uses to show wrath, or retributive justice: we were by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

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

Then, concerning the good, he likewise sets out three points.

First, the purpose, when he says that he might show the riches of his glory. For the purpose of the election and mercy shown to the good is for God to manifest in them the abundance of His goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory. This is the meaning of that he might show the riches of his glory, the riches about which he spoke earlier: or do you despise the riches of his goodness? (Romans 2:4). God who is rich in mercy (Ephesians 2:4).

And it is significant that he says that he might show the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and rejection of the wicked, carried out in accordance with God's justice, reveals and highlights the glory of the saints, who were freed from such misery.

Second, he describes their purpose, when he says on the vessels of mercy. He names them vessels of mercy because God uses them as instruments to display His mercy: these were men of mercy .

Third, he sets out God's action toward them. For God does not merely endure them, as if they were naturally disposed to good, but rather He prepares and disposes them by calling them to glory. Hence he says which he has prepared unto glory: preparing the mountains by your power (Psalms 65:6).

Up to this point, the Apostle uses an incomplete and suspended sentence structure, so that the meaning is: If God wants to do this—to have mercy on some and harden others—what can justly be said against it? The implied answer is: nothing. For He does not will to harden them in a way that compels them to sin; rather, He endures them as they tend toward evil by their own inclination.

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

He proceeds in three steps:

• First, he states the intended proposition.
• Second, he proves it, beginning with, as he says in Hosea.
• Third, he draws the conclusion, beginning with, what then shall we say?

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

Then he proves the proposition when he says, as he says in Hosea. He does this first with respect to the Gentiles, and second, with respect to the Jews, at and Isaiah cried out. Regarding the first, he cites two texts from Hosea speaking for the Gentiles: the first of these promises them God’s gifts, and the second, divine sonship, at and in the place where it was said to them.

First, therefore, he says: as the Lord says in Hosea, because it was he who spoke in the prophets: The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me; his word is on my tongue (2 Samuel 23:2). Hence, it also says in Hosea: When the LORD first spoke through Hosea (Hosea 1:2).

Here it should be noted that the Gentiles were cut off from three blessings for which the Jews were famous:

1. Divine sonship, by which they were called the people of God, as if serving him and obeying his precepts: we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand (Psalms 95:7). But the Gentiles were alienated from the society of this people, as it says in Ephesians: alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise (Ephesians 2:12). However, through Christ they have become God’s people: he gave himself for us to... purify for himself a people for his own possession (Titus 2:14). And that is what he says: I will call those who were not my people, that is, the Gentiles, my people, meaning, that they will be my people.

2. The privilege of divine love: the LORD loves the people of Israel (Hosea 3:1), because he offered them many benefits leading to special graces. From this love the Gentiles had formerly been excluded: alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them (Ephesians 4:18). Hence, he says: and her who was not beloved, that is, the Gentile races, I will call my beloved. You who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13); while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Romans 5:10).

3. Deliverance from original sin through circumcision: The LORD will have compassion on Jacob (Isaiah 14:1). But the Gentiles had no share in this compassion: On the day you were born your navel string was not cut... no eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you out of compassion for you (Ezekiel 16:4–5). But later, through Christ, they obtained compassion. Similarly, it follows: and her who had not obtained mercy, one who has obtained mercy. He saved us... according to his own mercy (Titus 3:5).

He cites this text from Hosea according to the Septuagint, in the place where our text has: I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’ (Hosea 2:23).

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

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

Hence, he says, and it shall be in the place, that is, in Judea, where it was said to them, that is, to the Gentiles by the Jews speaking as if in God’s person, you are not my people, because they did not consider them God’s people. There, that is, even among the believing Jews, they shall be called the sons of the living God.

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

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

• The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe.
• The second, at and as Isaiah predicted, pertains particularly to the apostles.

First, therefore, he says: we have indicated what Hosea said about the Gentiles, but Isaiah cries out, that is, speaks clearly about the conversion of Israel: Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet (Isaiah 58:1).

In this first citation, he first shows how few will be converted from Israel, saying: Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, that is, innumerable in light of the multitude of nations—I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore (Genesis 22:17); Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea (1 Kings 4:20)—a remnant will be saved. This means not all, not the majority, but a certain few who will be left after the pruning: I have become like one who gleans in autumn the grapes of the vintage (Micah 7:1); at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace (Romans 11:5).

Second, at for the Lord will carry out his sentence, he cites the cause of salvation. First is the efficacy of the word of the Gospel, saying: for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short.

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

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

Hence he says cutting it short in righteousness, either because nothing is omitted from the multitude of figures and precepts of the law, but all are included in the brevity of the Gospel; or because nothing remains of them to be observed but what is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason: All your commands are equity (Psalms 119:86). This should be understood so that the sense is: the word of the Gospel will shorten and perfect in righteousness.

Second, when he says because a short word, he gives the reason for this efficacy, saying, for the Lord will make a short word upon the earth, that is, when he lives on earth as a man: Afterward he was seen upon earth and conversed with men , will make a short word.

For the word which the Lord himself spoke in the flesh should be more perfect and powerful than the words he spoke through the prophets, as it says in Hebrews: God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners, spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son (Hebrews 1:1–2).

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

This decree is considered, however, in Isaiah, where according to our account it is said: For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them will return. A decreed destruction is overflowing with righteousness. For the Lord GOD of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in the midst of all the land (Isaiah 10:22–23).

Then, when he says and as Isaiah predicted, he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the apostles, saying: and as Isaiah predicted: Unless the Lord of Sabaoth, that is, of armies or powers, had left us a seed, namely, in his mercy. This seed could be the word of the Gospel, as in The seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11); or it could be Christ, as in And to your offspring, who is Christ (Galatians 3:16); or it could be the apostles, as in the holy seed is its stump (Isaiah 6:13). Without this seed, we would have become like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.

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

Consequently, it was an act of divine mercy that the Jews were not totally exterminated as the Sodomites were: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end (Lamentations 3:22).

Then he draws the conclusion from the above, when he says what then shall we say? He does this first with respect to the Gentiles, and second, with respect to the Jews, at but Israel.

Regarding the first, he does two things. First, he draws his conclusion, saying: What then shall we say, in light of the foregoing? I say it is this: that the Gentiles have attained it, that is, righteousness, by which they are called sons: And such were some of you. But you were washed... you were justified (1 Corinthians 6:11). And this, indeed, is from God’s calling and not from any merits, because he says, the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness. At that time you were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12).

Second, he explains what he calls the righteousness that is by faith, that is, not the righteousness that consists in works. For the Gentiles were not converted in order to observe the righteousness of the law, but to be justified through faith in Christ: the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe (Romans 3:22).

Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion regarding the Jews. First, he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, that is, the people of the Jews, who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.

The law of righteousness is the law of the Spirit of life through which people are made righteous, and which the Jewish people did not attain, although they pursued it by observing the shadow of this spiritual law: for the law has but a shadow of the good things to come (Hebrews 10:1). Or, by pursuing a law that would lead to righteousness refers to the law of Moses, which is the law of righteousness if it is understood well, because it teaches righteousness.

Or it is called the law of righteousness because it does not make people truly righteous, but only outwardly so, as long as sins are avoided not from love but from fear of the punishment that the law inflicted: Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the LORD (Isaiah 51:1); Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law (Isaiah 51:7).

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

And this is what he says: Because they did not seek it by faith, that is, they sought to be made righteous not through faith in Christ, but as if it were based on works. For they followed the figure and repudiated the truth: for by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight (Romans 3:20).

Third, he explains the cause he assigned. First, he presents the explanation, saying, They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, that is, Christ, who is compared to a stumbling stone. For just as a person does not guard against a stone they stumble over because it is small, so the Jews, seeing Christ clothed with our weakness, did not guard against stumbling over him: his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance... as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (Isaiah 53:3); before your feet stumble on the twilight mountains (Jeremiah 13:16), that is, on Christ and his apostles, who are called dark mountains because their great dignity is hidden.

Second, he cites an authority for this, saying: as it is written, namely, in Isaiah. Here the Apostle gathers together the words of Isaiah found in various places. For it says in Isaiah: behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation (Isaiah 28:16). From this he takes the first part of his quotation: Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, that is, as a foundation, which means that by divine command Christ was established as the foundation of the Church: For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Again it says in Isaiah: he will be... a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel (Isaiah 8:14). He uses this in the middle of the quotation where he says: a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. Here the stumbling refers to their ignorance, because it says in 1 Corinthians: if they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8). But the falling refers to their unbelief, by which they persecuted Christ and his apostles: we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23); Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel (Luke 2:34).

The end of the quotation is taken from Isaiah: He who believes will not be in haste (Isaiah 28:16). In place of this he says, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame, namely, because he will receive a reward from him: You who fear the Lord, hope for good things, for lasting joy and mercy .

The Apostle takes these words according to the Septuagint. Its meaning relates to what is in our text, He who believes will not be in haste, for a person seems to be in haste who considers himself deceived because he does not quickly get what he hoped for.