:
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Previous
Next
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:1
What Caiaphas said was also true: “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish,” yet this was not the truth in Christ. Therefore the apostle says that he is speaking the truth in Christ, in contrast to that truth which is not in Christ.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:1
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost."

Did I not seem yesterday to you to have spoken some great and exorbitant things of Paul's love toward Christ? And great indeed they were, too great for any words to express. Yet what you have heard today are as far above those things, as those things were above ours. And yet I did not think they could be exceeded, still when I came to what has been read today it did appear far more glorious than the whole of the former. And that he was aware of this himself he shows by his exordium. For as on the point of entering upon greater things than those, and therefore liable to be disbelieved by the generality, he first uses a strong asseveration about the matter he is going to speak of; which many are in the habit of doing when they are going to say somewhat which is not believed by the generality, and about which they feel the utmost certainty in their own minds. Hence he says, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, and my conscience bears witness,"

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:1
Because Paul says that his conscience bears him witness, he shows that he is telling the truth, which conscience corroborates in everyone, and he establishes that he is not charged with lying by an accusation from within.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 471] Gennadius of Constantinople on Romans 9:1
The Jews who opposed the apostles and their message said that one or another of the following propositions must be true. Either the gospel is a lie, or God is a liar.… For God promised Abraham that he would bless his offspring, but now he has shown favor to impure and foreign people, i.e., the Gentiles, instead of us. Now if your preaching is a way out of these promises, as you claim, then it is clear that God lied to our ancestors. On the other hand, if it is wrong to speak of God in this way, then you and your message are a lie.It was to answer this kind of charge that the apostle Paul wanted to work out an alternative position and demonstrate both that the message of the gospel was true and that God was not lying.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on Romans 9:1
And again: "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit."
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 9:1
Having shown the need [n. 97] and power [n. 381] of grace, the Apostle begins to discuss the origin of grace and ask whether it is conferred solely by God’s choice or from the merits of previous works. He raises this question because the Jews, seemingly called to God’s special protection, had fallen from grace; whereas the Gentiles, previously alienated from God, had been admitted to it. First, therefore, he discusses the election of the Gentiles; secondly, the fall of the Jews, in chapter 10 [n. 813]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he recounts the greatness of the Jews; secondly, he shows how the Gentiles have been drawn into that greatness [v. 6; n. 748]. 361 In regard to the first, he does two things: first the Apostle shows his affection for the Jewish people, lest anything he had said or was about to say against them should seem to proceed from hatred; second, he shows their dignity [v. 4; n. 742]. Concerning the first he does two things. First he confirms what he was about to say; second, he demonstrates his affection [v. 2; n. 737]. 736. Concerning the first he does two things. First, he confirms what he is about to say with a simple assertion: I am speaking the truth, which especially befits the preacher who is a witness to the truth: "My mouth will utter truth" (Pr 8:7); "Love truth and peace" (Zech 8:19). And because a person sometimes mixes falsehood with the truth, he excludes this when he adds: I am not lying: "Putting away falsehood, let everyone speak the truth to this neighbor" (Eph 4:25). Secondly, he confirms what he is about to say with an oath, which is a confirmation supported by the testimony of infallible truth. Such are the witnesses of the saints: first, God Himself, as it say in Job 16:19: "My witness is in heaven." Hence Paul says, in Christ, i.e., through Jesus Christ Who is the truth without falsehood: "The Son of God whom we preached among you was not Yes and No" (2 Cor 1:19). Secondly, the infallible witness of the saints is their conscience; hence he adds: my conscience bears me witness: "Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience" (2 Cor 1:12). But because one’s conscience is sometimes erroneous unless it is corrected by the Holy Spirit he adds: in the Holy Spirit: "The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit" (Rom 8:16). 362 737. Then (v. 2) he shows his affection for the Jews by the pain he suffered from their fall. First, he describes this pain; secondly, he mentions a sign of it [v. 3; n. 739]. 738. He emphasizes how much pain he has suffered in three ways. First by its magnitude: I have great sorrow, because it concerns a great evil, namely, the exclusion of such a great people: "Vast as the sea is your ruin" (Lam 2:13). But this seems to conflict with Sir (30:22) where it says: "Give not up your soul to sadness," which seems to agree with the opinion of the Stoics, who admitted no sadness at all in the soul of a wise man. For since sadness is a reaction to a present evil, it cannot exist in a wise man to whom no evil is present. For they supposed that virtue was the only good and sin the only evil. But this opinion is refuted in two ways. First, because bodily defect, although they are not such evils as make men evil, are nevertheless among the evils which nature abhors. Hence, even the Lord is described as saddened by them: "My soul is sorrowful, even to death" (Mt 26:38). Secondly, since charity requires that a person love his neighbor as himself, it is laudable for a wise man to grieve over a son of his neighbor as over his own. Hence the Apostle says: "I fear that I May have to mourn over many of those who sinned" (2 Cor 12:2). Thus, worldly sadness, which springs from love of the world, works death and is rejected, but sadness which is godly and springs form divine love works salvation, as it says in 2 Cor 7:10. Such was Paul’s sadness. 363 Secondly, he emphasizes his grief by its duration, when he says: and unceasing anguish; not that he never ceased to grieve actually, but habitually: "That I might weep day and night for the slain of my people" (Jer 9:1). Thirdly, he emphasizes how real it was when he says: in my heart; for it was not superficial but rooted in the heart: "My eyes are spent in weeping…. My heart is poured out in grief" (Lam 2:11). 739. Then (v. 3) he presents the sign of his sadness, saying: For I, who am so fervent in the love of Christ, as was shown above, could wish that I myself were accursed [anathema]. Here it should be noted that "anathema" is a Greek word formed by combining "ana" which means "above" and "thesis" which means "placing," so that something placed above is said to be anathema. For when they found among the spoils of war something they did not wish men to use, they hung it in the temple. Form this, the custom arose that things but off from the common use of men were said to be "anathema"; hence, it says in Jos 6:17: "Let this city be an anathema, and all things that are in it, to the Lord." 740. He says, therefore: I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ, i.e., separated from Him. One is separated from Christ in two ways: in one way by a sin, through which one is separated form the love of Christ for not obeying His commandment: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (Jn 14:15) But the Apostle could not wish to be separated from Christ in this way for any reason, as he explained in c. 8. For this is against the order of charity, by which a person is bound to love God above all things and his own salvation more than that of others. So he does not say "I wish" but "I could wish" during his days 364 of unbelief. But according to this explanation the Apostle is not saying anything great, because in those days he was willing to be separated from Christ even for himself. Hence, a Gloss explains that he says, I have great sorrow, referring to the sorrow with which he grieved over his past state of sin, during which he willed to be separated from Christ. In another way one can be separated from Christ, i.e., from the fruition of Christ possessed in glory. This is the way the Apostle wished to be separated from Christ, for the salvation of the Gentiles, not to mention the conversion of the Jews. For he says in Phil (1:23): "My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remains in the flesh is more necessary on your account." This he now says: I could wish, namely, if it were possible, to be anathema, i.e., separated from glory either absolutely or temporarily from Christ’s honor, which would be enhanced by the conversion of the Jews, as it ways in Pr 14:28: "In the multitude of the people is the dignity of the king." Hence, Chrysostom says: "Love so ruled his mind that to please Christ he would not only sacrifice being with Christ, which he deemed more desirable than anything else, but also the kingdom of heaven, which would be the reward of his labor for Christ." 741. The cause of this attitude is shown when he says: for the sake of my brethren. Hence Sir (25:1) 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, he adds: who are my kinsmen by race: "Are they descendents of Abraham? So am I" (I Cor 11:22). 365 742. Then (v. 4) he shows the greatness of the Jews in order that his sadness appear reasonable on account of the ancient dignity of a deteriorating people (for it is a weightier evil to lose greatness than never to have possessed it) and not as though it arose solely from worldly love. 743. But he shows their greatness in three ways. First, from their face when he says: They are Israelites, i.e., descending from the stock of Jacob who was called Israel (Gen 32:28). This pertains to their greatness, for it says in Dt (4:7): "Neither is there any nation so great as to have their gods coming to them…" 744. Secondly, he shows the greatness of that race from God’s blessings: first, the spiritual blessings, one of which refers to the present: to them belongs the sonship: hence it says in Ex (4:22): "Israel is my son, my firstborn." This refers to the spiritual men who arose among that people: but as to worldly men he stated above (8:15) that they received the spirit of slavery in fear. Another spiritual blessings refers to the future when he says: the glory, namely, of the sons of God promised to them. A reference to this is found in Ex (40:32): "The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." Then he sets out other, figural benefits, of which there were figures of present spiritual benefit. The first of these is the covenant, i.e., the pact of circumcision given to Abraham, as is recorded in Gen c. 17, although this could be referred to the new covenant preached first to the Jews. Hence, the Lord Himself said: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 15:24); and Jer (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel." The second is the Law given through Moses; hence, he continues: the giving of the law: "Moses commanded a law to us" (Sir 24:33). The third is 366 divine worship when he says: the worship with which they served God, when all the other nations were serving idols: "But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen" (Is 44:1). Then he mentions the blessing which pertains to future glory when he says: and the promises. For the promises made in the Old Testament and fulfilled by Christ seem made especially to the Jews; hence he says below (15:8): "I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs." Now many other promises were made to them about earthly goods, as is recorded in Lev (c. 26) and Dt (c. 18), but by these temporal goods spiritual [goods] were prefigured. 745. Third he describes the Jews’ dignity by their origin, when he says: to them belong the Patriarchs, 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" (Dt 4:37); "Like the first fruit on the fig tree I saw their fathers" (Hos 9:1). 746. Fourthly, he shows their greatness from the a descendant when he says: and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ Who says: "Salvation is from the Jews" (Jn 4:22). 747. Then to prevent this from being underestimated he shows the greatness of Christ, saying: Who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen: "This is the true God and eternal life" (I Jn 5:20). In these words four heresies are refuted: first, Manichean, which held that Christ had not a true but imaginary body. This is refuted when he says, according to the flesh. 367 For He has true flesh, as it says in Lk (24:39): "A spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Secondly, Valentinus’ heresy which claims that Christ’s body was not taken from the human line but brought from heaven. This is excluded when he says that Christ was from the Jews according to the flesh, in keeping with Mt (1:1): "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Thirdly, 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 He is from the patriarchs according to the flesh Who is God over all. Fourthly, the Arian heresy, which claimed that Christ was less than the Father and created form nothing. Against the first he says that He is over all; against the second that He is blessed for ever. For it is true of God alone that His goodness remains forever.
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:2
Since it appears that earlier he was speaking against the Jews, who thought that they were justified by the law, Paul now shows his desire and love for them and says that his conscience bears witness in Christ Jesus and in the Holy Spirit.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:2-3
What do you say, O Paul? From Christ, your beloved One, from Whom neither kingdom nor hell, nor things visible nor intelligible, nor another world as great, would separate you, is it from Him that you would now be accursed? What has happened? Have you changed, have you given over that love? No, he replies, fear not. Rather I have even made it more intense. How then is it that you would fain be accursed, and seekest a separation, and a removal to such a distance, that after it there is no possibility of finding a more distant one? Because I love Him exceedingly, he may reply. How, pray, and in what manner? For the things seem a riddle. Or rather, if you will, let us learn what the curse is, and then we will question him upon these points, and shall understand this unspeakable and extraordinary love. What then is the curse? Hear his own words, "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed." [ anathema, 1 Corinthians 16:22] That is, let him be set apart from all, removed from all. For as in the case of a thing dedicated (ἀ νάθημα), which is set apart for God, no one would venture so much as to touch it with his hand or even to come near it; so too with a man who is put apart from the Church, in cutting him off from all, and removing him as far off as possible, he calls him by this name (ἀ νάθεμα) in a contrary sense, thus with much fear denouncing to all men to keep apart from him, and to spring away from him. For the thing set apart, no one, from respect of it, ventures to come near to. But from him who is cut off, all men separate themselves from a very opposite feeling. And so the separation is the same, and both the one and the other are equally removed from the generality. Still, the mode of separation is not the same, but in this case it is the opposite to what it is in that. For from the one they keep back as being dedicated to God; from the other as being estranged from God, and broken off from the Church. This then is what Paul means when he says, "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ." And he does not say merely that I could be willing, but using a stronger term, he says even, "I could wish" (or pray ηὐχόμην). But if what he says trouble you in your (ἀ σθενέστερον) feebleness, consider the real state of the case, not only that he wished to be separated, but also the cause for which he wished it, and then you will see the greatness of his love. For he even circumcised [Timothy, Acts 16:3], and we pay no attention to what was done, but to the intention of it, and the cause of it, and hence we wonder at him the more. And he not only circumcised a person, but he even shaved himself and sacrificed [Acts 18:18; Acts 21:24], and yet surely we do not therefore assert him to be a Jew, but upon this very score to be perfectly free from Judaizing, and clear of it, and a genuine worshipper of Christ. As then when you see him circumcising and sacrificing, you do not therefore condemn him as Judaizing, but upon this very score have the best reason for crowning him as quite an alien to Judaism; thus when you see him to have become desirous of being accursed, do not therefore be troubled, but upon this very ground give him the loudest praise, when you know the cause why he wishes this. For if we do not look narrowly into the causes, we shall call Elijah a manslayer, and Abraham not a manslayer only, but a murderer of his son. And Phinees and Peter we shall implead for murder likewise. Nor is it in the case of the saints alone, but also of the God of the universe, that he who does not keep to this rule, will be suspecting sundry unbecoming things. Now to prevent this happening in all cases of the kind, let us bring together both the cause, and the intention, and the time, and all that makes in behalf of what is so done, and in this way let us investigate the actions. And this we must do now also in the case of this blessed soul. Now what is the cause? It is Jesus Himself Who is so beloved. And yet he does not say for Him; for what he says is, I would wish that I were accursed from Him for my brethren. And this comes of his humbleness of mind. For he has no wish to make himself conspicuous, as if he were saying something great, and doing Christ a favor in this. Wherefore also he said "my kinsmen," that he may conceal his high aim (πλεονέκτημα ) . Since to see that he wished it all for Christ's sake, just hear what comes next. After speaking of kinsmen then, he proceeds,

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:2
Because Paul intends to proceed against the Jews, he first assures them that he does not speak out of hatred for them, but out of love, for it pains him that they do not believe in Christ, who had come to save them as soon as possible.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:2
The construction here is incomplete. Paul should have added that his unceasing anguish was due to the rejection or unbelief of the Jews.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:3
Why be surprised that the apostle desires to be cursed for his brethren’s sake, when he who is in the form of God emptied himself and took on the form of a servant and was made a curse for us? Why be surprised if, when Christ became a curse for his servants, one of his servants should become a curse for his brethren?

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 9:3
That Christ is God. In Genesis: "And God said unto Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place of Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to that God who appeared unto thee when thou reddest from the face of thy brother Esau." Also in Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord, the God of Sabaoth, Egypt is wearied; and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the tall men of the Sabeans, shall pass over unto Thee, and shall be Thy servants; and shall walk after Thee bound with chains; and shall worship Thee, and shall pray to Thee, because God is in Thee, and there is no other God beside Thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, our Saviour. They shall all be confounded and fear who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion." Likewise in the same: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every channel shall be filled up, and every mountain and bill shall be made low, and all crooked places shall be made straight, and rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, because the Lord hath spoken it." Moreover, in Jeremiah: This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed beside Him, who hath found all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob His son, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and He conversed with men." Also in Zechariah God says: "And they shall cross over through the narrow sea, and they shall smite the waves in the sea, and they shall dry up all the depths of the rivers; and all the haughtiness of the Assyrians shall be confounded, and the sceptre of Egypt shall be taken away. And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God, and in His name shall they glory, saith the Lord." Moreover, in Hosea the Lord saith: "I will not do according to the anger of mine indignation, I will not allow Ephraim to be destroyed: for I am God, and there is not a holy man in thee: and I will not enter into the city; I will go after God." Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: "Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness." Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: "Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name." Also in the Gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word." Also in the same: "The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." Also Paul to the Romans: "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israel-ires: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore." Also in the Apocalypse: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst." And again in the same place: "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men." But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God! Thus He Himself says in the Gospel according to John: "Is it not written in the law, that I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the word of God was given, and the Scripture cannot be relaxed, do ye say to Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? But if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, and ye will not believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "And ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:3
What are you saying, Paul? Do you really want to be cut off from Christ, your beloved one, from whom neither heaven nor hell, nor things visible nor invisible, nor another world as great would separate you? Do you want to be cursed by him? What has happened? Have you changed, have you thrown over your previous love? No, Paul replies, do not worry! On the contrary, I have made my love for him more intense still.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:3
If Paul was willing to become accursed so that others might believe, he ought to have wished it for the sake of the Gentiles as well. But as he wishes it only for the sake of the Jews, it is proof that he did not wish it for Christ’s sake, but because of his relationship to them. If he had prayed only for the Gentiles, this would not have been so clear. As it is only for the Jews though, it is clear proof that he is only as earnest as this because he wants to see Christ glorified in them.Paul was cut to the heart when he realized the extent to which the Jews had blasphemed God and because he was concerned for God’s glory. He wished that he were accursed, if possible, so that they might be saved, their blasphemy might be brought to an end, and God himself might be vindicated from any charge that he might have deceived the offspring of those to whom he had promised gifts.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:3
Paul wished this at one time, before he became a follower of Christ.… But after he recognized the truth, he abandoned those whom he used to love in this way, yet still they do not repent.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 420] Jerome on Romans 9:3-5
Why the Apostle Paul writes in the same Epistle to the Romans: I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites, to whom the adoption belongs, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:3 et seqq.) Indeed, a valid question, how can the Apostle who said above: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? (Romans 8:35) And again: But I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39), now confirm under oath and say: I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: That I have great sadness, and continual sorrow in my heart. For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh. And so on. For if someone's love for God is so strong that he cannot be separated from His love, by neither the fear of death, nor the hope of life, nor persecution, nor hunger, nor nudity, nor danger, nor sword; and if Angels also, and Powers, both present and future, and all the Forces of heaven, and both the high and the deep, and every creature at once were to assail him, which cannot possibly be done: yet he would not be separated from the love of God, which he has in Christ Jesus: what is this great change, rather unheard-of prudence, that for the love of Christ, he would not want to have Christ? And lest we do not believe him, he swears and confirms in Christ, and calls his conscience as a witness, the Holy Spirit, that he has sadness, not light or casual, but great and unbelievable, and has sorrow in his heart, which does not sting for an hour and pass, but which continually remains in his heart. Where does this sadness lead? What profit is there in unceasing pain? Is it wished to be anathema from Christ, and to perish, so that others may be saved? But if we consider the voice of Moses asking God for the people of the Jews, and saying, "If thou wilt forgive them their sin, forgive; but if not, blot me out of thy book, which thou hast written" (Exod. 32. 31. 32), we will see the same feelings in Moses and Paul towards the flock entrusted to them. For a good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. But a hireling, who is not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and flees. And to say this same thing: I wished to be cursed by Christ; and erase me from your book which you have written. For those who are erased from the book of the living, and are not written with the just, are made anathema by the Lord. At the same time, see how great is the love of the Apostle for Christ, that he desires to die for him, and to perish alone, provided that the whole human race believes in him. To perish, however, not forever, but for the present. For whoever shall lose his life for Christ, shall save it (Matt. 10:39). Hence, he takes as an example the Forty-Third Psalm: For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter (Ps. 43:22). Therefore, the Apostle wishes to die in the flesh, so that others may be saved in the spirit; to pour out his blood so that many souls may be preserved. However, that anathema sometimes signifies slaying can be proved by many testimonies of the Old Testament. And lest we think the grief to be slight, and the cause of sorrow small, he joins it and says: For my brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh. When he calls them kinsmen and brethren according to the flesh, he shows that they are strangers to him in spirit. Whose adoption," he says, "is signified more significantly in Greek as ὑιοθεσία; these things were spoken of by the Lord: 'You are my firstborn son, Israel,' and 'I have begotten sons and exalted them' (Isaiah 1:2), but now he says, 'Alien sons have lied to me' (Psalm 17:46). And their glory is that they were chosen from all nations to be a special people of God, and their covenants, one in the letter and the other in the spirit, meant that those who once served ceremonies of the abolished Law in the flesh would afterwards serve in the spirit the commands of the eternal Gospel. And the law addresses both the new and the old Testament. And worship, that is, true religion. And promises; to fulfill whatever was promised to the fathers in their descendants. And (which is greater than all) from whom Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. And in order that we might know who this Christ is, he embraces the causes of his pain in one speech, who is blessed above all God forever, amen. And this great and such, is not received from those from whom he was born. And nevertheless, he praises the truth of judgement, so that the sentence of God may not seem displeasing to his kindred and brothers, and be either austere or excessive. In which, therefore, such great goods were present, he laments why so many evils are present now.

Source: Letter 121, Chapter 9
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:4
For although the Jew withal be called "a son," and an "elder one," inasmuch as he had priority in adoption; although, too, he envy the Christian the reconciliation of God the Father,-a point which the opposite side most eagerly catches at,-still it will be no speech of a Jew to the Father: "Behold, in how many years do I serve Thee, and Thy precept have I never transgressed.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:4
Israel was adopted by God and given the sonship: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God; for the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”“The covenants” and “the giving of the law” seem to be much the same thing. But I think there is this difference between them, that the law was given once, by Moses, but covenants were given frequently. For every time the people sinned and were cast down, they were disinherited. And every time God was propitiated and he called them back to the inheritance of their possession, he renewed the covenants and declared them to be heirs once more.
“The worship” refers to the priestly sacrifices. “The promises” are those which were made to the patriarchs and which are given to all who are called children of Abraham.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:4-5
And what is this? One asks. For if with a view to the belief of others he was willing to become accursed, he ought to have also wished for this in the Gentiles' behalf. But if he wishes it in the Jews' behalf only, it is a proof that he did not wish it for Christ's sake, but for his own relationship to them. But in fact if he had prayed for the Gentiles only, this would not have been equally clear. But since it is for the Jews only, it is a clear proof that it is only for Christ's glory that he is thus earnest. And I am aware that what I am saying will seem a paradox to you. Still if you do not make a disturbance, I will presently endeavor to make it clear. For what he has said he has not said nakedly; but since all were talking and accusing God, that after being counted worthy of the name of sons, and receiving the Law, and knowing Him beyond all men, and enjoying such great glory, and serving him beyond the whole world, and receiving the promises, and being from fathers who were His friends, and what was the greatest thing of all, having been forefathers of Christ Himself (for this is the meaning of the words, "of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came"), they are now cast out and disgraced; and in their place are introduced men who had never known Him, of the Gentiles. Now since they said all this, and blasphemed God, Paul hearing it, and being cut to the heart, and vexed for God's glory's sake, wished that he were accursed, had it been possible, so that they might be saved, and this blasphemy be put a stop to, and God might not seem to have deceived the offspring of those to whom He promised the gifts. And that you may see that it was in sorrow for this, that the promise of God might not seem to fall to the ground, which said to Abraham, "I will give this land to you and to your seed," that he uttered this wish, he proceeds,

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:4
“The sonship” belongs to the Jews, for of them it was said: “Israel, my firstborn son.” They had the old law and the promise of the new law.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 99] Clement of Rome on Romans 9:5
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. [Romans 9:5] From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will.

Source: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 9:5
And again, writing to the Romans about Israel, he says: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever."

Source: Against Heresies Book III
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:5
Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of Christ in this point alone (to name no more, not to delay my own course), that he suffered persecution at the hands of his brethren, and was sold into Egypt, on account of the favour of God; just as Christ was sold by Israel-(and therefore, ) "according to the flesh," by His "brethren" -when He is betrayed by Judas.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:5
But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever." For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam.

Source: Against Praxeas
[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on Romans 9:5
Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; " and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed Almighty by the Father. And in like manner Paul also, in setting forth the truth that all things are delivered unto Him, said, "Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For all things are put under Him. But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. Then shall He also Himself be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, He is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him, that in all there might be manifested one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father hath made all things subject, with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For He speaks thus: "I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." If then, Noetus ventures to say that He is the Father Himself, to what father will he say Christ goes away according to the word of the Gospel? But if he will have us abandon the Gospel and give credence to his senselessness, he expends his labour in vain; for "we ought to obey God rather than men."

Source: Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:5
It is clear from this passage that Christ is the “God who is over all.” The one who is over all has nothing over him, for Christ does not come after the Father but from the Father. The Holy Spirit is also included in this, as it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord fills the earth, and whoever contains all things knows every sound.” So if the Son is God over all and the Spirit is recorded as containing all things, it is clear that the nature and substance of the Trinity are shown to be one and over all things.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 311] Methodius of Olympus on Romans 9:5
Of the gods, but which teaches us the wondrous condescension to us men of the awful glory of Him who is God over all.
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:5
Paul lists so many indications of the nobility and dignity of the Jewish people and of the promises they received in order to deepen his grief for all these things, because by not accepting the Savior they lost the privilege of their fathers and the merit of the promises, and they became worse than the Gentiles, whom they had previously detested when they were without God. For it is a worse evil to lose a dignity than never to have had it.As there is no mention of the Father’s name in this verse and Paul is talking about Christ, it cannot be disputed that he is called God here. For if Scripture is speaking about God the Father and adds the Son, it often calls the Father God and the Son Lord. If someone does not think that it is said here about Christ that he is God, then let him name the person about whom he thinks it is said, for there is no mention of God the Father in this verse.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:5
The patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Paul writes here against the Manicheans, Photinus and Arius because Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, and God, blessed forever.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:5
The Jews, who held only the first part of this confession, are refuted by the Lord. For when he asked them whose son they said Christ was, they answered “David’s.” This is true according to the flesh. But concerning his divinity … they answered nothing. Therefore the Lord said to them: “Why did David, in the Spirit, call him Lord?” in order that they might realize that they had only confessed that Christ is the son of David and had not said that Christ is Lord of this same David. The first fact is true according to his assumption of flesh, the other accordingto the eternity of his divinity.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 59
[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on Romans 9:5
God chose Israel for himself from the beginning, which is why he called it the firstborn. But the Israelites fell because they were proud, wicked and, worst of all, murderers of their Lord. Therefore they perished, for they were rejected and abandoned and excluded from God’s company, placed behind even the Gentiles and cut off from the hope promised to their ancestors.

Source: EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 390] Diodorus of Tarsus on Romans 9:6
Because the promises which had been given to the Jews had been transferred to the Gentiles, Paul wanted to avoid the charge that God had lied about his promises, and so he shows how God remains faithful. The Scriptures make it clear that it was not those who were Israelites according to the flesh but those who by their godliness showed that they were worthy to be Israelites who were called children of Abraham.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:6
To show that he had courage (Mar. and 4 manuscripts wished) to bear all these things for the word of God, that is, the promise made to Abraham. For as Moses seemed to be pleading for the Jews, yet was doing everything for God's glory (for he says, "Lest they say, Because He was not able to save them, He led them forth to destroy them in the wilderness" [Deuteronomy 9:28]; stay Your wrath), so also does Paul, That they may not say (he means) that the promise of God has fallen to the ground, and He has disappointed us of that He vouched to us, and this word has not issued in deed, I could wish to be accursed. This then was why he did not speak of the Gentiles (for to them no promises had been made by Him, nor had they worshipped Him, wherefore neither did any blaspheme Him on their account), but it was for the Jews who had both received the promise, and had also been brought into closer connection with Him than others, that he expressed this wish. Do you see, that if he had expressed it for the Gentiles, he would not have been shown to be doing this so purely for Christ's glory? But since he was willing to become accursed in the Jews' behalf, then it was most evidenced that it was for Christ's sake only that he desired this. And for this cause he says,

"To whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the service of God, and the promises."

For the Law, he means, which speaks of Christ, comes from thence, and all the covenants made with them, and Himself came from them, and the Fathers who received the promises were all from them. Yet still the opposite has resulted, and they have fallen from all their good things. Hence, he means, I am vexed, and if it were possible to be separated from the company about Christ, and to be made an alien, not from the love of Him (that be far from him; for even all this he was doing through love), but from all that enjoyment and glory, I would accept that lot, provided my Master were not to be blasphemed, that He might not have to hear some saying, that it has been all for stage-effect; He promises to one, and gives to another. He was sprung from one race, He saved another. It was to the forefathers of the Jews that He made the promises, and yet He has deserted their descendants, and put men, who never at any time knew Him, into their good things. They labored in the practice of the Law, and reading the Prophets, while men who have come but yesterday from heathen altars and images have been set up above them. What foresight is there in all this? Now that these things may not be said of my Master, he means, even if they are said unjustly, I would willingly lose even the kingdom and that glory unutterable, and any sufferings would I undergo, as considering it the greatest consolation possible no longer to hear Him Whom I so long for, so blasphemed. But if you be still against allowing this explanation, just reflect that many fathers have at many times taken up with thus much for their children, and have chosen to be separated from them, and rather to see them in honor, considering their honor dearer to them than their company. But since we are so short of love like this (Bacon, N. O. Aph. lib. 2, §7), we cannot even form an idea of what is here meant. For there be some that are so wholly unworthy even to hear the name of Paul, and that stand at such an interval and distance from that vehemency of his, as to fancy that he says this of temporal death. Who I should say were as ignorant of Paul, as the blind of the sun's rays, or even much more so. For he that died daily, and set before him dangers thick as a snow-storm, and then said, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine?" and still unsatisfied with what he had said, and after going above the heaven and the heaven of heavens, and running through the Angels and Archangels, and all the higher orders of beings, and taking in at once things present, things to come, things visible, things intelligible, things grievous, and things good, that were on either part, and leaving nothing out at all, yet not even thus satiated, but even bodying forth another non-existing creation, how should he, by way of saying some great thing after all those things, make mention of a temporal death? It is not so, surely it is not! But such a notion is that of worms nestling in their dunghill. For had he said this, in what sense would he be wishing himself accursed from Christ? For death [Philippians 1:23] of that sort would have joined him more closely with the band of Christ, and made him enjoy that glory the more. Yet some there are who venture to say things different from these, even more ridiculous. It was not then, they say, death that he wished to have, but to be a treasure, a thing set apart, of Christ's. And who even of the most worthless and indolent that would not wish for this? And in what way was this likely to be in his kinsmen's behalf? Let us then leave these fables and trifles (for it is no more worth while making a reply to these things than to children babbling at play), and let us go back again to the words themselves, luxuriating in this very ocean of love, and fearlessly swimming there in every direction, and reflecting upon the unspeakable flame of love— or rather say what one may, one shall say nothing worthy the subject. For there is no ocean so wide, no flame so intense, as this. And no language can set it forth as it deserves, but he alone knew it who in good earnest gained it. And now let me bring the words themselves before you again.

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed." What does the "I myself" mean? It means I that have been a teacher [1 Corinthians 9:27] of all, that have gathered together countless good deeds, that am waiting for countless crowns, that desired Him so much, as to value His love above all things, who all my days am burning for Him, and hold all things [Philippians 3:8] of second importance to the love of Him. For even being loved by Christ was not the only thing he cared for, but loving Him exceedingly also. And this last he cared most for (τούτου μάλιστα ἦν). So it was that he looked to this only, and took all things light-heartedly. For he kept one aim in view in all circumstances, the fulfilling of this excellent love. And this he wishes for. But since things were not to take this course, nor he to become accursed, he next attempts to go into a defense against the charges, and so to bring what was bruited abroad by all before them as to overthrow it. And before he openly enters into his defense against these, he first lays down some seeds of it beforehand. For when he says, "to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises," he does but say that God willed them indeed to be saved, and this he showed by His former dealings, and by Christ's having sprung from them, and by what He promised to the Fathers. But they out of their own untreatable temper thrust the benefit away from them. And this is also the reason of his setting down such things as set forth God's gift, not such as were encomiums upon them. For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, "Who is blessed forever. Amen."

So himself offering up thanksgiving for all men unto the Only-Begotten of God. What, he says, if others do blaspheme? Still we who know His mysteries, and His unspeakable Wisdom, and great Providence over us, know well that it is not to be blasphemed, but to be glorified, that He is worthy. Still not satisfied with being himself conscious of it, he endeavors next to use arguments, and to use a sharper way of speech against them. And he does not direct his aim at them, without first divesting them of a suspicion they had. Lest then he should seem to be addressing them as enemies, further on he says "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." [Romans 10:1] And here, along with other remarks, he so ordered things, as not to seem to be saying what he was going to say out of enmity against them. Hence he does not decline calling them even kinsmen and brothers. For even if it was for Christ's sake that he said what he did, still he is for drawing (ἐ πισπἅται) their mind to him also, and paves his way to what he has to say, and quits himself of all suspicion owing to what had to be said against them, and then he at last goes into the subject most of them were looking for. For many, as I have already stated, wanted to know what was the reason why they who had received the promise fell short of it, while those who had even never heard of it were saved before them. Therefore, to clear up this difficulty, he brings forward the answer before the objection. For to prevent any from saying, What? Are you more thoughtful for God's glory than God is for His own? And does He need your aid that His word may not fall to the ground? In reply to these things he says, I spoke this not as if God's Word had fallen to the ground, but to show my love for Christ. For as things have had this issue, we are in no want of words in God's behalf, or of showing that stand His promise did. God said to Abraham, "To you and to your seed will I give the land." And, "In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." [Genesis 12:7] Let us see then, he says, of what sort this seed is. For it is not all that are from him that are his seed. Whence he says, "For they are not all Israel that are of (or from) Israel."

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:6
Since Paul has said above that he is upset that the people of Israel had been shut out of the kingdom by their own fault, for all these things had belonged to them, he shows here that those who do not believe are not sons of Abraham, lest someone think that he was opposed to all Jews and retort: “Did God then lie to Abraham?”

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 9:6
After asserting the greatness of the Jews [n. 735], the Apostle now shows that it did not refer to those who descended according to the flesh from the ancient patriarchs but to the spiritual progeny chosen by God. First, he shows that this greatness arises from God's selection; secondly, that this selection applies generally to Jew and Gentiles [v. 24; n. 796]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how from God's choice men obtain spiritual greatness; secondly, he raises a question about the justice of God's choice [v. 14; n. 765]. In regard to the first he does two things: First, he states his proposition; secondly shows it [v. 7b; n. 751]. Concerning the first, he does two things. First he sets out the firmness of the divine election; second, he shows in whom it is accomplished [v. 6b; n. 750]. 369 749. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the promises, the adoption of sons, and glory referred to people whose fall is to me a source of great sadness and unceasing sorrow. But it is not as though the word of God had failed, i.e., was frustrated, because although it has found no place in those who had fallen, it has a place in others: "The word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose" (Is 55:11); "For ever, O Lord, thy word is firmly fixed" (Ps 119:89). 750. Then (v. 6b) he shows how and in whom God's word had failed. In regard to this it should be noted that the Jews boasted mainly of two things, namely, Abraham, who first received the pact of circumcision from God (Gen c.17) and Jacob of Israel, all of whom 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 not all who are descended form Israel i.e., from Jacob according to the flesh, are true Israelites, to whom God's promises belong, but those who are upright and see God by faith: "Fear not, Jacob, and thus most righteous whom I have chosen" (Is 44:2). Hence the Lord also said to Nathanael: "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile" (Jn 1:47). Now this name, "Israel," had been put on Jacob by an angel (Gen c.32). Secondly, he states the same things by comparison with Abraham saying: and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants, i.e., are not the spiritual sons of Abraham to whom God promised the blessings, but only those who imitate his faith and works: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did" (Jn 8:40). 370 751. Then (v. 7b) he clarifies his statement: first, in regard to Abraham; secondly, in regard to Jacob [v. 10; n. 755]. 752. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying: through Isaac shall your descendants be named. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Gen (c. 21), when describing the expulsion of Ishmael. As if to say: not all who were born from Abraham according to the flesh belong to that seed to whom the promises were made, but hose who are like Isaac. 753. Then (v. 8) he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis. To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Gal (4:22): "Abraham had two sons, on e by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave," namely, Ishmael, "was born according to the flesh," because he was born according to the law and custom of the flesh from a young woman: "the son of the free woman," namely, Isaac, "through promise" and not according to the flesh, i.e., not according to the law and custom of the flesh, because he was born from a sterile, old woman, as it says in Gen (c.18); although he was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the substance of the flesh he received from his parents. From this the Apostle decides that those adopted into the sonship of God are not the sons of the flesh, i.e., not because they are the bodily descendants of Abraham, but the children of the promise are descendants, i.e., those who are made songs of Abraham because they imitate his faith, as it says in Mt (3:9): "God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." Thus, Ishmael, born according to the flesh was not numbered among the seed, but Isaac born by the promise was. 371 Thirdly, (v.9) he proves that his explanation is valid, when he says that the children of the promise are the ones signified by Isaac, namely, because Isaac was born as the result of a promise. Hence he says: For this is what the promise said. Indeed, this is the statement the angel or the Lord through an angel made to Abraham: About this time I will return, by which the time of grace is signified: "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son" (Gal 4:4) and Sarah shall have a son on account of the promise. Hence, it says in Gal (4:5): "So that we might receive adoption of sons." 755. Then (v. 10) he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob. First he states his intention; secondly, he clarifies his position [v. 11; n. 757]. 756. First, therefore, he says: And not only she, namely, Sarah, begot a son about whom the promise was made, but also Rebecca, having in her womb two sons, one of whom pertained to the promise and the other only to the flesh, had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac. For it says in Gen (25:21): "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." And it should be noted that the Apostle cites this against the Jews who supposed that they would obtain righteousness through the merits of their forefathers, which is contrary to what is said about just men, namely, that "they will deliver neither sons nor daughters but they alone will be delivered" (Ez 14:18). This is why John said to the Jews: "Do not presume to say, 'We have Abraham as our father'" (Mt 3:9). Paul, therefore, 372 counters this opinion by reminding them that of Abraham's children one was chosen and the other rejected. But he could have ascribed this difference to the mothers, because Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman, or to the changed meriting state of the father; because while uncircumcised he begot Ishmael but circumcised he begot Isaac. To exclude any such subterfuge, therefore, he cites the case where one is chosen and the other rejected, even though both were born of the same father and the same mother at the same time and, indeed, from one coition. 757. Then (v. 11) he clarifies his thesis: first, by the authority of Gen (c. 28); secondly, by a text from the prophet Malachi (v. 13). 758. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when they were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other in virtue of the promise. And just as his previous statement excluded the opinion of the Jews trusting in the merits of their forefathers, so this statement counters the error of the Manicheans who claimed that a person's life and death were controlled by the constellation under which he was born, against what is said in Jer (10:2) "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear." Then when he continues: though they had done nothing either good or bad, the Pelagian error is refuted which says that grace is given according to one's preceding merits, even though it says in *** (3:5): "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy." 373 Both of these are shown false by the fact that before birth and before doing anything one of Rebecca's sons is preferred to the other. This also corrects Origen's error who supposed that men's souls were created when the angels were, and that they merited different lives depending on the merits they earned for the good or evil they had done there. This could not be true in the light of what is stated here, namely that they had done nothing either good or bad. Against this also is Job (38:7): "Where were you when the morning stars praised me together and all the sons of God made joyful melody?" For according to Origen's error, he could have answered: I was among those joyful sons of God. 759. Secondly, he shows what could be understood from that promise by which one of the twins in the womb was chosen over the other. He says: In order that God's purpose, by which one would be greater than the other, might continue, i.e., be made firm: and this not by reason of merits but of election i.e., inasmuch as God himself spontaneously forechose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy, as it says in Eph (1:4): "He chose us in himself before the foundation of the world that we should be holy." But this is a decree of predestination about which the same text says: "Predestined according to the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:15). 760. Thirdly, he sets down the promise, saying, not because of works, for no works preceded it, as has been said: but because of his call, i.e., through the grace of God calling, for she was told, i.e., Rebecca, that the elder, i.e., Esau, will serve the younger, i.e., Jacob. This can be understood in three ways. 761. In one way, as referring to the persons involved, and then Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, inasmuch as the persecution he launched 374 27 A capsa was a box for holding parchment scrolls. A capsarius was slave whose job it was to carry the scrolls. against him ended in Jacob's benefit, as it says in Pr (11:29): "The fool will serve the wise." Secondly, it can be referred to the people who sprang from each, because the Edomites were once subject to the Israelites, as it says in Ps 60 (v.8); "Upon Edom I cast my shoe." This seems to fit Gen (25:23): "The nations are in your womb; the one shall be stronger than the other." Thirdly, it can be taken figuratively so that by the elder is understood the Jewish people, who were the first to receive the adoption of sons, in accord with Ex 4:22, "Israel is my firstborn son," and by the younger is understood the Gentiles, who were called to the Father later and were signified by the prodigal son (Lk c. 15). The elder people in this case serve the younger, inasmuch as the Jews are our capsarii,27 guarding the books form which the truths of our faith are drawn: "Search the scriptures" (Jn 5:39). 762. Then (v. 13) he proves his point by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God Who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. A gloss on this says that the statement, the elder will serve the younger, was spoken from foreknowledge, but that the present statement results from judgment, i.e., that God loved Jacob on account of his good works, just as He loves all the saints: "I love those who love me (Pr 8:17), but he hated Esau on account of his sings, as it says in Si (12:3): "The Highest hates sinners." But because man's love is preceded by God's love: "Not that we loved God, but that he has first loved us" (1 Jn 4:20), we must say that Jacob was loved by God before he 375 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 Jer (31:3): "I have loved you with an everlasting love." 763. Now these words of the Apostle identify in God three things pertaining to the saints, namely, election, by which is understood God's predestination and election. In God these are really the same, but in our understanding they differ. For it is called God's love, inasmuch as he wills good to a person absolutely; it is election, inasmuch as through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. But it is called predestination, inasmuch as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions predestination comes after love, just as the will's fixation on the end naturally precedes the process of directing things towards the end. Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in man. For in men, election precedes love, for a man's will is inclined to love a thing on account of the good perceived in it, this good also being the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixed his love on the thing he preferred. But God's love is the cause of every good found in a creature; consequently, the good in virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows upon Gods willing it—which pertains to His love, Consequently, it is not in virtue of some good which He selects in a man that God love him; rather, it is because He loved him that He prefers him to someone by election. 376 764. But just as the love, about which we are speaking, pertains to Gods eternal predestination, so the hatred about which we are speaking pertains to the rejection by which God rejects sinners. It should not be supposed that this rejection is temporal, because nothing in the divine will is temporal; rather, it is eternal. Furthermore, it is akin to love or predestination in some respect and different in another. It is akin in the sense that just as predestination is preparation for glory, so rejection is preparation for punishment: "For a burning place has long been prepared, yes, for the king it is made ready" (Is 30:33). It is different in that predestination implies preparation of the merits by which glory is reached, but rejection implies preparation of the sins by which punishment is reached. Consequently, a foreknowledge of merits cannot be the reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be a reason for rejection on the part of the punishment prepared for the rejected, inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for the sins they have from themselves, not from God; the just He proposes to reward on account of the merits they do not have from themselves: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in me" (Hos 13:9).
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:7
What Paul wants us to understand is that not all are worthy because they are children of Abraham, but only those who are children of the promise, that is, whom God foreknew would receive his promise, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.… Abraham believed and received Isaac on account of his faith, because he believed in God. By this the mystery of the future faith was indicated, that they would be brothers of Isaac who had the same faith by which Isaac was born, because Isaac was born as a type of the Savior by the promise. Thus whoever believes that Christ Jesus was promised to Abraham is a child of Abraham and a brother of Isaac. Abraham was told that all the nations would be blessed in his offspring. This happened not in Isaac, but in him who was promised to Abraham in Isaac, that is, Christ, in whom all the nations are blessed when they believe. Therefore the other Jews are children of the flesh, because they are deprived of the promise and cannot claim Abraham’s merit, because they do not follow the faith by which Abraham is counted worthy.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 390] Diodorus of Tarsus on Romans 9:7
Paul wants to say that it is not those who are of Abraham’s flesh who are his children, but those who are of the promise, who are godly and just, whom God promised according to his foreknowledge would be children of Abraham, just as Isaac was made righteous by the promise.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:7
Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word has not fallen to the ground. Of what kind, pray, is the seed then? It is no saying of mine, he means, but the Old Testament itself explains itself by saying as follows, "In Isaac shall your seed be called." [Genesis 21:12] What is, "In Isaac?" Explain.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:7
Not all Jews are children of Abraham, but some still are; and if not all Israelites are from Israel, then some … are from the Gentiles. Even so, the sons of Abraham were named in Isaac alone and not in Ishmael, although he too descended from Abraham’s line.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:7
Although it was beyond the capacity of nature, Abraham became a father by divine generosity. Paul says this, even though Ishmael was also Abraham’s son and moreover, he was the firstborn. Therefore why do you boast, O Jew, that you are the only one to be descended from Abraham? For if you think that Ishmael does not count because he was the son of a slave, you are wrong. Holy Scripture reckons descent through the father and not through the mother. After all, the holy apostle could have mentioned the children born to Abraham through Keturah and shown that although they were born to a free woman they were not recognized as Abraham’s seed. It would also have been easy for Paul to show that the twelve sons of Jacob had different mothers, and four of them were the children of slaves, yet all of them belonged to Israel, and none of them was hurt by his mother’s slavery.… Here Paul wanted to insist that it was not the entire race of Abraham which received the blessing. Rather, only one of his sons was blessed, and the others were rejected.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:8
And observe the judgment and depth of Paul's mind. For in interpreting, he does not say, "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not" the children of Abraham, but, "the children of God:" so blending the former things with the present, and showing that even Isaac was not merely Abraham's son. And what he means is something of this sort: as many as have been born as Isaac was, they are sons of God, and of the seed of Abraham. And this is why he said, "in Isaac shall your seed be called." That one may learn that they who are born after the fashion of Isaac, these are in the truest sense Abraham's children. In what way was Isaac born then? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of the promise. What is meant then by the power of "the promise?"

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:8
Paul does not call them the children of Abraham, but rather “the children of God,” thus combining the past with the present and showing that even Isaac was not merely Abraham’s son. What Paul means is something like this: Whoever has been born in the way that Isaac was born is a son of God and of the seed of Abraham.… For Isaac was born not according to the law of nature nor according to the power of the flesh but according to the power of the promise.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:8
Ishmael was born of a maidservant by sexual intercourse, but Isaac was begotten by supernatural means from old people, by God’s promise. So the promise, which Abraham’s faith merited, now makes Christians sons of Abraham, so that Abraham is indeed the father of many nations.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:9
This prefigures Christ, because Christ was promised to Abraham as a future son, in whom the word of the promise would be fulfilled.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:9
This promise then and word of God it was that fashioned Isaac, and begot him. For what if a womb was its instrument and the belly of a woman? Since it was not the power of the belly, but the might of the promise that begot the child. Thus are we also gendered by the words of God. Since in the pool of water it is the words of God which generate and fashion us. For it is by being baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that we are gendered. And this birth is not of nature, but of the promise of God. [John 3:3; Ephesians 5:26; James 1:18; 1 Peter 3:21] For as after first foretelling the birth of Isaac, He then accomplished it; so ours also He had announced before, many ages ago by all the Prophets, and afterwards brought it to pass. You know how great He has set it forth as being, and how, as He promised a great thing, He furnished it with abundant ease! [Hosea 2:1, etc] But if the Jews were to say, that the words, "In Isaac shall your seed be called," mean this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens. You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of baptism from above was sketched out beforehand. And if you tell me of the womb, I in return have to tell you of the water. But as in this case all is of the Spirit, so in the other all was of promise. For the womb was more chilled than any water owing to barrenness and to old age. Let us then gain accurate knowledge of our own nobility, and display a life worthy of it. For in it is nothing fleshly or earthy: hence neither let there be in us. For it was neither sleep, nor the will of the flesh [John 1:13], nor embraces, nor the madness of desire, but "God's love toward man," which wrought the whole. [Titus 3:5] And as in that case it was when the age was past hope, so in this also it was when the old age of sins had come over us, that Isaac suddenly sprang up in youth, and we all became the children of God, and the seed of Abraham. [Isaiah 40:31]

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:9
It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but rather even in nature regeneration through baptism from above was sketched out beforehand.… For Sarah’s womb was colder than any water, owing to barrenness and old age.… And just as in her case it happened when her age was past hope, so in this case also it was when the old age of sins had come upon us that Isaac suddenly sprang up in youth, and we all became the children of God and the seed of Abraham.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:9
This passage [to v. 29] is rather obscure.

Source: TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.1
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 9:10
From the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the eider shall serve the younger."
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:10
For thus unto Rebecca did God speak: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from thy bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less." Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and "greater" through the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be "less" in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy: beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and "greater" people-that is, the Jewish-must necessarily serve the "less; "and the "less" people-that is, the Christian-overcome the "greater.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:10
Much more aptly would they have matched the Christian with the elder, and the Jew with the younger son, "according to the analogy of faith," if the order of each people as intimated from Rebecca's womb permitted the inversion: only that (in that case) the concluding paragraph would oppose them; for it will he fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it he true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:10
Paul says that Sarah was not the only one to give birth in a typological manner. Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, did the same, though in a different way. Isaac was born as a type of the Savior, but Jacob and Esau were born as types of two peoples, believers and unbelievers, who come from the same source but are nevertheless very different.… One person represents the entire race, not because he is their physical ancestor but because he shares their relationship to God. There are children of Esau who are children of Jacob, and vice versa. It is not because Jacob is praised that all those descended from him are worthy to be called his children. Nor is it because Esau was rejected that all those descended from him are condemned, for we see that Jacob the deceiver had unbelieving children, and Esau had children who were faithful and dear to God. There is no doubt that there are many unbelieving children of Jacob, for all the Jews, whether they are believers or unbelievers, have their origin in him. And that there are good and faithful children of Esau is proved by the example of Job, who was a descendent of Esau, five generations away from Abraham and therefore Esau’s grandson.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:10
I might, he implies, have mentioned the children by Keturah besides, but I do not. But to gain the victory from a vantage ground it is those born of one and the same father, and mother too, that I bring forward. For they were both sprung from Rebecca, and from Isaac the true-born, the elect, the son honored above all, of whom He said, "In Isaac shall your seed be called," who became "the father of us all;" but if he was our father, then should his sons have been our fathers; yet it was not so. You see how this happens not in Abraham's case only, but also in that of his son himself, and how it is faith and virtue in all cases that is conspicuous, and gives the real relationship its character. For hence we learn that it is not only from the manner of birth, but owing to their being worthy of the father's virtue, that the children are called children of him. For if it were only owing to the manner of the birth, then ought Esau to have enjoyed the same as Jacob did. For he also was from a womb as good as dead, and his mother was barren. Yet this was not the only thing required, but the character too, which fact contributes no common amount of practical instruction for us. And he does not say that one is good and another bad, and so the former was honored; lest this kind of argument should be wielded against him, "What, are those of the Gentiles good men rather than those of the circumcision?" For even supposing the truth of the matter was so, still he does not state it yet, as that would have seemed to be vexatious. But it is upon God's knowledge that he has cast the whole, and this no one would venture to gainsay, though he were ever so frantic. "For the children being not yet born," he says, "it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger." And he shows that noble birth after the flesh is of no avail, but we must seek for virtue of soul, which even before the works of it God knows of. For "the children," he says, "being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said to her that the elder shall serve the younger:" for this was a sign of foreknowledge, that they were chosen from the very birth. That the election made according to foreknowledge, might be manifestly of God, from the first day He at once saw and proclaimed which was good and which not. Do not then tell me that you have read the Law (he means) and the Prophets, and hast been a servant for such a long time. For He that knows how to assay the soul, knows which is worthy of being saved. Yield then to the incomprehensibleness of the election. For it is He alone Who knows how to crown aright. How many, for instance, seemed better than St. Matthew; to go by the exhibition of works then visible. But He that knows things undeclared, and is able to assay the mind's aptitude, knew the pearl though lying in the mire, and after passing by others, and being well pleased with the beauty of this, He elected it, and by adding to the noble born free-will grace from Himself, He made it approved. For if in the case of these arts which are perishable, and indeed in other matters, those that are good judges do not use the grounds on which the uninstructed form their decision, in selecting out of what is put before them; but from points which they are themselves well aware of, they many times disparage that which the uninstructed approve, and decide upon what they disparage: and horse-breakers often do this with horses, and so the judges of precious stones, and workmen in other arts: much more will the God that loves man, the infinite Wisdom, Who alone has a clear knowledge of all things, not allow of man's guesses, but will out of His own exact and unfailing Wisdom pass his sentence upon all men. Hence it was that He chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot; but dishonored priests, and elders, and rulers, and cast them out. And this one may see happening in the martyrs' case also. Many accordingly of those who were utterly cast aside, have in the time of trial been crowned. And, on the other hand, some that have been held great ones by many have stumbled and fallen. Do not then call the Creator to account, nor say, Why is it that one was crowned and another punished? For He knows how to do these things with exactness. Whence also he says, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated." That it was with justice, you indeed know from the result: but Himself even before the result knew it clearly. For it is not a mere exhibition of works that God searches after, but a nobleness of choice and an obedient temper (γνώμην εὐγνώμονα]) besides. For a man of this kind, if he should ever sin through some surprise, will speedily recover himself. And if he should even stay long haply in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, but God Who knows all things will speedily draw him out. And so he that is herein corrupted, even if he seem to do some good things, will perish, in that he does this with an ill intention. Hence even David, after committing murder and adultery, since he did this as being carried away by surprise, and not from habitual practice of wickedness, speedily washed it out. The Pharisee, however, who had not perpetrated any such crime [Luke 18:11], but even had good deeds besides to boast of, lost all by the bad spirit he had chosen.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:10
Not only are Ishmael and Isaac (who were born of different mothers but the same father) not equal in the sight of God; Jacob and Esau too (who were born of Rebecca by a single conception), were separated in God’s sight before they were born, because of their future faith, so that God’s plan to choose the good and reject the evil already existed in his foreknowledge. Thus God has now chosen from among the Gentiles those whom he foreknew would believe and has rejected those of Israel whom he foreknew would not believe. Rebecca is thought to have been the first woman to have borne twins; it is because this strange thing has happened to her that she inquires of God.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:10
God’s foreknowledge does not prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:10
Paul reinforces here what he said earlier about Sarah and Isaac, in case someone might think that the election depended on the mother. For although Rebecca had twins, only one of them was chosen.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:11
Paul is saying all this in order to demonstrate that if either Isaac or Jacob had been chosen by God because of their merits and earned justification by the works of the flesh, then the grace which they merited could belong also to those who were descended from them according to flesh and blood. But in fact, since their election was not due to works, but to the purpose of God and the free will of him who called them, the grace of the promises is not fulfilled in the children of the flesh, but in the children of God, that is, in those who are likewise chosen according to God’s purpose and adopted as sons.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:11
Paul proclaims God’s foreknowledge by citing these events, because nothing can happen in the future other than what God already knows. Therefore, knowing what each of them would become, God said: “The younger will be worthy and the elder unworthy.” In his foreknowledge he chose the one and rejected the other. And in the one whom God chose his purpose remained, because nothing other than what God knew and purposed in him to make him worthy of salvation could happen. Likewise, the purpose of God remained in the one whom he rejected. However, although God knew what would happen, he is not a respecter of persons and condemns nobody before he sins, nor does he reward anyone until he conquers.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:11-13
What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? Why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good. And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, "the elder shall serve the younger." With what intent then did God say this? Because He does not wait, as man does, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knows which is the wicked and which not such. And this took place in the Israelites' case also, in a still more wonderful way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and of Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the Israelites' case, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshipped the calf. Yet notwithstanding some had mercy shown them, and others had not.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:11
God does not have to wait, as we do, to see which one will turn out good and which one will turn out bad. He knew this in advance and decided accordingly.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:11
Perhaps this happened so that it might be shown that even from a set of twins the one who does not believe is abandoned.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:11
This moves some people to suppose that the apostle Paul had taken away the freedom of the will, by which we either please God by the good of faithfulness or offend him by the evil of unfaithfulness. These people say that God loved the one and hated the other before either one was born or could have done either good or evil. But we reply that God did this by foreknowledge, by which he knows what even the unborn will be like in the future. But let no one say God chose the works of the man whom he loved, although these works did not yet exist, because he knew in advance what they would be. If God elected works, why does the apostle say that election is not according to works? Thus we should understand that we do good works through love, and we have love by the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says himself: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.”Therefore no one should glory in his works as if they were his own, for he does them by the gift of God, since love itself works good in him. What then has God elected? If he gives the Holy Spirit, through whom love works good, to whomever he wishes, how does he choose whom to give him to? If he does not choose according to merit, it is not election, for everyone is equal prior to merit, and it is impossible to choose between totally equal things. But since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not choose works (which he himself bestows), for he gives the Holy Spirit so that through love we might do good works. Rather, he chooses faith.
For unless each one believes in him and perseveres in his willingness to receive, he does not receive the gift of God (i.e., the Holy Spirit), through whom, by an outpouring of love, he is enabled to do good works. Therefore God did not choose anyone’s works (which he himself will give) by foreknowledge, but by foreknowledge he chose faith. He chose the one whom he knew in advance would believe in him, and to him he has given the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he may attain everlasting life.
Belief is our work, but good deeds belong to him who gives the Holy Spirit to believers. This argument was used against certain Jews who, once they believed in Christ, gloried in the works they had done before receiving grace. They claimed that they had merited the grace of the gospel by these earlier works, even though only a person who has received grace can do good works. Furthermore, grace is such that the call comes to the sinner when he has no merit and prevents him from going straight to his damnation. But if he follows God’s call of his own free will, he will also merit the Holy Spirit, through whom he can do good works. And remaining in the Spirit (also by free will) he will merit eternal life, which cannot be marred by any corruption.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 60
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:11
No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling; they do not precede it.… Unless the mercy of God in calling precedes faith, no one can even believe and thus begin to be justified and to receive the power to do good works. So grace comes before all merit. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from the God who called him and not from any meritorious works of his own.

Source: TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.1
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:11
We know that children not yet born have done nothing either good or evil in their own life, nor have they any merits from a previous life, which no individual can have as his own. They come into the miseries of this life, their carnal birth according to Adam involves them at the moment of their nativity in the contagion of the primal death, and they are not delivered from the penalty of eternal death which a just verdict passing from one lays upon all unless they are born again in Christ through grace.

Source: LETTER 217
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:12
Here Paul shows that the people who came afterward belonged to the promise after the manner of Isaac.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:12
No one could say that Jacob had conciliated God by meritorious works before he was born, so that God should say this of him.… Nor had Isaac conciliated God by any previous meritorious works, so that his birth should have been promised.… Good works do not produce grace, but are produced by grace.

Source: TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.3
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 9:13
Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Source: Against Heresies Book IV
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:13
These things are said of the Jews … for not all who are called children of Abraham deserve to be so called, as I have already pointed out. Therefore Paul restricts his grief to the fact that he discovered that it was long ago predicted that not all would believe, and he grieves for them only because they refused to believe out of jealousy. They had the opportunity, however, as Paul demonstrates. At the same time, there was no point in grieving over those who were not predestined to eternal life, for God’s foreknowledge had long ago decreed that they would not be saved. For who would cry over someone who is long dead? But when the Gentiles appeared and accepted the salvation which the Jews had lost, Paul’s grief was stirred, but this was mainly because they were the cause of their own damnation.God knew those who would turn out to be people of ill will and he did not number them among the good, although the Savior said to the seventy-two disciples whom he chose as a second class and who later abandoned him: “Your names are written in heaven.” But this was because of justice, since it is just that each person should receive his reward. For because they were good they were chosen for this service, and their names were written in heaven for the sake of justice, as I have said. But according to foreknowledge they were among the number of the wicked. For God judges according to his justice, not according to his foreknowledge. Thus he said to Moses: “If someone sins against me, I shall delete him from my book.” The person who sins is deleted according to the justice of the Judge, but according to his foreknowledge his name was never in the book of life. The apostle John described these people as follows: “They went out from us but they were never of us, for if they had been of us they would have remained with us.” There is no respect of persons in God’s foreknowledge. For God’s foreknowledge is that by which it is defined what the future will of each person will be, in which he will remain, by which he will either be condemned or rewarded. Some of those who will remain among the good were once evil, and some of those who will remain among the evil were once good.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:13
The apostle shows that what had been told to Rebecca was fulfilled in her descendants.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:13
If God hated Esau because he was a vessel made for dishonor, how could it be true that God hates nothing which he has made? For in that case, God hated Esau, even though he had made him as a vessel for dishonor. This knotty problem is solved if we understand that God is the Maker of all creatures. Every creature of God is good. Every man is a creature as man but not as sinner. God is the Creator both of the body and of the soul of man. Neither of these is evil, and God hates neither. He hates nothing which he has made. But the soul is more excellent than the body, and God is more excellent than both soul and body, being the maker and fashioner of both. In man he hates nothing but sin. Sin in man is perversity and lack of order, i.e., a turning away from the Creator, who is more excellent, and a turning to the creatures which are inferior to him. God does not hate Esau the man, but he does hate Esau the sinner.

Source: TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.18
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:13
Thus God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael and the children of Keturah. So also he chose Jacob over Esau, even though both were formed together in the womb. Why be surprised then, if God does the same thing nowadays, by accepting those of you who believe and rejecting those who have not seen the light?

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 471] Gennadius of Constantinople on Romans 9:13
It was many years after the event that Scripture testified to this in the words of the prophet Haggai [Malachi]. Paul added this quotation because he wanted to show that God’s judgment is just, for while it was in accordance with his foreknowledge, the lives of both men later followed these different paths.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 9:14
"For there is no unrighteousness with God"
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:14
Hence there is no such thing in the case of us and the Jews. And then he goes on with another thing, a more clear than this. And of what sort is it?

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:14
Paul was afraid that because he had argued that racial privilege is of no consequence in God’s sight, or in case the Jews understood him to be saying that already at that time it was indicated that later people would be better people, they might think that he meant that God makes some people good and others evil, because, in the judgment of the Jews, it was unjust to punish those who had not voluntarily sinned, Paul also calls to mind the contrary texts which they usually used to support this view, and after replying to these examples with brief objections he shows that they should not be understood as they understand them.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:14
What is to be said of infants who receive the sacrament of Christian grace, as is usual at that age, and thus undoubtedly have a claim to eternal life and the kingdom of heaven if they die at once, whereas if they are allowed to grow up, some become even apostates? Why is this, except that they are not included in that predestination and calling according to his purpose which is without repentance? Why some are included and others are not can be for a hidden reason but not for an unjust one.

Source: LETTER 149
[AD 542] Caesarius of Arles on Romans 9:14
Why does God not scourge all men mercifully in such a way so as not to allow anyone to be hardened against him? Either this is to be ascribed to the wickedness of those who have deserved to become hardened, or it is to be referred to the inscrutable judgments of God, which are often hidden but are never unjust.

Source: SERMON 101.5
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 9:14
After showing that by God's choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling [n. 748], the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice. First, he raises a question; secondly, he answers it [v. 14b; n. 768]; thirdly, he objects against the solution [v. 19; n. 786]. 766. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that God chose one and rejected the other without any preceding merit. What shall we say then? Does this enable us to prove that there is injustice on God's part? It seems so. For it pertains to justice that things be dispensed equally to equals. But when differences arising from merit are removed, men are equal. Therefore, if without consideration of merits God dispensed unequally by choosing one and rejecting the other, it seems that there is injustice to Him; contrary to what is said in Dt (32:4) 378 "God is faithful and without any iniquity"; "Righteous art thou, O Lord, and right are thy judgments" (Ps 119:137). 767. It should be noted that Origen fell into error trying to solve this objection. For he says in his Periarchon that from the beginning God made only spiritual creatures and all were equal, lest he be charged with injustice for any inequality; later, differences among these creatures arose from differences of merit. For some of those spiritual creatures were turned to God by love, some more and some less; on this basis the various orders of angels were distinguished. Others turned from God, some more and some less; on this basis they were bound to bodies, either noble or lowly; some to heavenly bodies, some to bodies of demons, some to bodies of men. Accordingly, the reason or making and distinguishing bodily creatures is the sin of spiritual creatures. But this is against what is said in Gen (1:31): "God saw everything which he had made, and it was very good," which gives us to understand that goodness was the cause of producing bodily creatures, as Augustine says in The City of God (c.11). 768. Therefore, we must set aside this opinion and see how the Apostle solves the problem when he says: Let it not be! In regard to this he does two things: first, he solves the problem with respect to choosing the saints; secondly, with respect to hating and rejecting the wicked [v. 17; n. 799]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes the scriptural text from which the solution comes; secondly, he draws the conclusion from it [v. 16; n. 775]. 379 769. The text he adduces is from Ex (33:19) where the Lord said to Moses: "I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me." But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: For the Lord says to Moses: 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. The meaning is that all our blessings are ascribed to God's mercy, as it says in Is (63:7): "I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things the Lord has bestowed upon us"; and in Lam (3:22): "The mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed; because his commiserations have not failed. 770. The text Paul cites is explained in two ways in a Goss, so that it solves the question and the objection in two ways. First, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., on him who is worthy of mercy. To amplify this he repeats: I will have compassion on whom I have compassion, i.e., on whom I judge worthy of compassion, as it says in Ps 103 (v.13): "The Lord has compassion on them that fear him." It follows from this that although he imparts his blessings from mercy, he is nevertheless excused from injustice; for he gives to those who should be given and does not give to one who should not be given, according to the correctness of His judgment. 771. But having mercy on one who is worthy can be understood in two ways: in one way so that one is counted worthy of mercy on account of preexisting works in this life, though not in another life, as Origen supposed. This belongs to the Pelagian heresy which taught that God's grace is given to men according to their merits. But this cannot stand, because, as has been stated, the good merits themselves are from God and are the effects of predestination. 380 772. But there is another way in which one is considered worthy of mercy, not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits subsequent to grace; for example, if God gives a person grace and He planned from eternity to give him that grace which He foresaw would be used well. According to this the Gloss is saying that He has mercy on him who should be given mercy. Hence he says: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., by calling and bestowing grace, I will have mercy on him to whom I know beforehand that I will show mercy, knowing that he will be converted and abide with me. But it seems that not even this is a suitable explanation. For it is clear that nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for a predestination, even if it be taken as existing in God's foreknowledge, because the reason for a predestination is presupposed to the predestination, whereas the effect is included in it. But every benefit God bestows on a man for his salvation is an effect of predestination. Furthermore, God's benefits extend not only to the infusion of grace, by which a man is made righteous, but also to its use, just as in natural things God not only causes their forms but all the movements and activities of those forms, inasmuch as God is the source of all movement in such a way that when He ceases to act, no movement or activity proceeds from those forms. But sanctifying grace and the accompanying virtues in the soul are related to their use as a natural form is related to its activity. Hence, it is states in Is (26:12): "O Lord, thou hast wrought for us all our works." 773. Aristotle proves this in a particular way when he discusses the works of the human will. 381 For since man is open to opposites, say to sitting or not sitting, it must be resolved by something else. But this is done by deliberation, which is followed by choosing one over the other. But again, since man has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, it will be necessary that something move him to deliberate. But since this does not proceed ad infinitum, there must be some external principal superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle is none other than God. In this way, then, the very use of grace is from God. But this does not mean that sanctifying grace is superfluous, any more than natural forms are superfluous, even though God works in all, as it says in Wis (8:1): "Wisdom orders all things sweetly," because through their forms all things are inclined spontaneously, as it were, to that to which they are planned by God. Consequently, it is impossible that the merits which follow grace are the reason for showing mercy or for predestination; the only reason is God's will, according to which he mercifully delivers certain ones. For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wage, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither. For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by His grace He delivers by His mercy alone; and so He is merciful to those whom He delivers, just to those whom He does not deliver, but unjust to none. 382 Thus, the Apostle solves the question with a text which ascribes all to divine mercy. 774. Yet it should be noted that God's mercy is viewed according to three aspects: first, according to predestination by which He proposed from all eternity to deliver certain ones: "The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting" (Ps 103:17); secondly, according to His calling and justifying, by which He saves men in time: "He saved us in his mercy" (*** 3:5); thirdly, according to the bestowal of glory, when He frees from all misery: "Who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy" (Ps 103:4). Therefore, he says: I will have mercy, namely, by calling and justifying, on whom I have mercy by predestining and having compassion and finally by crowning with glory him on whom I have mercy by calling and justifying. This interpretation is more in keeping with the version before me: "I will be gracious to whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me" where divine mercy is clearly ascribed not to merits but solely to the divine will. 775. Then (v. 16) he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited. This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one say thus: So a man's salvation depends not on man's will or exertion, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action; but on God's mercy, i.e., it proceeds from the sole mercy of God. What follows from the authority cited is found in Dr (9:4): "Do not say in your heart, 'It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me into this land.'" 776. But it can be understood in another sense: all things proceed form God's mercy; so it depends not on man's will to will or exertion to exert oneself, but each 383 depends on God's mercy, as it says in 1 Cor (15:10): "it was not I but the grace of God which is with me," and in Jn (15:5): "Without me you can do nothing." 777. But if this is all that is understood in this word, since even grace without man's free judgment does not will or strive, he could have said the converse, namely, it does not depends on God's mercy but on man's will or exertion, which is offensive to pious ears. Consequently, something more must be understood from these words, if first place is to be given to God's grace. For an action is attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary, as when we say that the hammer does not make the box but the carpenter by using the hammer. But man's will is moved to good by God, as it says above: "All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14); therefore, an inward action of man is not to be attributed principally to man but to God: "It is God who of his good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance" (Phil 2:13). But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will. But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover. 384 779. Then (v. 17) he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked. First, he quotes an authority; secondly, he draws the conclusion (v. 18). 780. He says, therefore: It has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity. But neither is there injustice in rejecting the wicked from all eternity. For out of God's mouth the Scripture says, I have raised you up, or according to another rendition: "Have preserved you" for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. 781. The first point to notice here is what God does in regard to the rejected. He shows this when he says: For this purpose have I preserved you, i.e. you had deserved to die for the evils you had done: Those who do such things deserve to die" (Rom 1:32), but I did not call you to die at once; rather I preserved you in life for this purpose, namely, of showing my power in you. This interpretation can also be obtained from the version which reads: I have raised you up, i.e., although before me you deserved to be dead, I granted you life, as if I had raised you up. From this it appears that God works no injustice against the rejected, sine they deserved to be destroyed at once for their crimes; rather, the fact that He preserves their life proceeds from His exceeding goodness: "Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment; and not in thy fury, lest thou bring me to nothing" (Jer 10:24). Another interpretation is this, I have raised you up for sin, that you might become worse. This should not be understood as though God causes sin in man; rather, it should be understood in a permissive sense, namely, that from His just judgment he permits 385 some to fall into sin on account of previous sins, as it says above (1:28): "God gave them up to a base mind." But it seems to me that still more must be understood here, namely, that men are moved to good and to evil y God through an inward prompting. Hence, Augustine says in his book On Grace and Free Will that God works in men's hearts to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, either to good through His mercy or to evil according to their deserts. Thus, God is aid very often to tire p men to do good, as it says in Dan (13:45): "The Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy." He is also said to raise up others to do evil, as in Is (13:1): "I will stir up the Medes against them and with their arrows they shall kill the children." However, He stirs them to good and to evil in different ways: for he inclines men's wills to good directly as the author of these good deeds; but he is said to incline or stir up men to evil as an occasional cause, namely, inasmuch as God puts before a person, either in him or outside of him something which of itself is conducive to good but which through his own malice he uses for evil: "Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath" (Rom 2:4-5) and "God gave his place for penance: and he abused it unto pride" (Jb 24:23). Similarly, as far as in him lies, God enlightens a man inwardly to good, say a king to defend the rights of his kingdom or to punish rebels. But he abuses this good impulse according to the malice of his heart. This is plain in Is (10:6) 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..." and further on: "But he does not so intend, and his mind 386 does not so think, but it is in his mind to destroy." That is the way it happened with Pharaoh, who, when he was prompted by God to defend his kingdom, abused this suggestion and practiced cruelty. 782. Secondly, there is need to consider the purpose behind God's doing certain things and permitting certain things. For one must remember that God works in creatures to manifest Himself, as it says in Rom (1:20): "His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made"; hence these promptings are ordained to this manifestation both for those present, for the very purpose of showing my power in you, "and Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians Ex (14:3), and for those absent, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. Thus, it is clear that in this matter there in no injustice in God, because he uses his creature according to its merits for his glory. And it can be interpreted in the same sense if it be said I have raised you up, i.e., I have ordered your malice to my glory; for God orders the malice, but does not cause it. 783. Then (v. 18) he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited: from the text, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, he concludes: Therefore he has mercy upon whomever he wills: "The Lord has mercy on them that fear him" (Ps 103:11); from the text, I have raised you up, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills: "You have hardened our heart, so that we fear thee not: (Is 3:17); "Some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he cursed and brought low" (Sir 33:12). There seems to be no difficulty about God's mercy, once we grant what has been said above. 387 784. But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening: first, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sir (3:27): "A hard heart shall fear evil at the last." Consequently, if God hardens the heart, He is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in Jas (1:13): "God is no tempter to evil." The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though He causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God Himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace. 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" (I Th 4:3) and "He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just. Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy upon whomever he wills through His mercy and he hardens whomever he wills through His justice, because those whom He hardens deserve to be hardened by Him, as was stated above in chapter 1.
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 9:15
"For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"
[AD 382] Apollinaris of Laodicea on Romans 9:15
It is not unjust for God to have mercy on those he wishes to have mercy on but not on others. For, as Paul says, God demonstrates through Moses what his mercy was like. He does not dispense mercy according to human standards, but according to the wisdom of God. For we are shown mercy not because of our own works but because of God, who has the power to show mercy.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:15
This means that God will have mercy on those whom he knows will be converted and remain with him.… He will show mercy to those who, after they have sinned, return to him with a right heart. It is God’s to give or to not give. He calls the ones whom he knows will obey and does not call those whom he knows will not obey.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:15
Here again he adds force to the objection by dividing it in two and meeting it, and starting another fresh difficulty. But to make what I have said clearer, one must needs explain it. God, he means, said that "the elder shall serve the younger," before the travail. What then? "Is God unrighteous?" By no means. Now listen to what follows also. For in that case the virtue or the vice, might be the decisive thing. But here there was one sin on which all the Jews joined, that of the molten calf, and still some were punished, and some were not punished. And this is why He says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." [Exodus 33:19: observe context] For it is not yours to know, O Moses, he means, which are deserving of My love toward man, but leave this to Me. But if Moses had no right to know, much less have we. And this is why he did not barely quote the passage, but also called to our minds to whom it was said. For it is Moses, he means, that he is speaking to, that at least by the dignity of the person he might make the objector modest. Having then given a solution of the difficulties raised, he divides it in two, by bringing forward another objection besides, as follows:

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:15
God was telling Moses that it was not his to know who was deserving of God’s love towards man; rather, Moses was to leave that up to God. If that was true for him, how much more is it true for us!

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:15
This means: “I will have mercy on him whom I have foreknown will be able to deserve compassion, so that I have already had mercy on him.”

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:15
God was merciful to us in the first place in that he called us while we were still sinners … and he continues to have mercy on us now that we believe. How does God have mercy a second time? He gives his Holy Spirit to the man who believes and asks for him. And having given the Spirit God will then have compassion on those to whom he has already shown compassion. That is to say, he will make the believer compassionate so that he may do good works through love. Let no one take the credit for acting compassionately, since it was by the Holy Spirit that God gave him this love, without which no one can be compassionate.God did not elect those who had done good works, but those who believed, so that he might enable them to do good works. It is our part to believe and to will and his part to give to those who believe and will the ability to do good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts in order to make us compassionate.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 61
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:16
This must be understood in the light of what David says in the psalm: “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” From this we learn that it is not because the builder sits idly by that God builds the house for him but because he works and expends as much labor and care as lies within human power, but yet it belongs to God to remove all the obstacles and bring the work to completion. Thus, man is called to work as hard as he can, but God will crown the work with success. Therefore it is godly and right for a man to leave the completion of his work to God and not to another human being. Likewise, Paul sowed and Apollos watered but God gave the increase, “so neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” In the same way, we can say that “it depends not upon man’s will or exertion but upon God’s mercy.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:16
When Saul asked forgiveness for his sin he did not receive it, but David, when he confessed his sin, did receive forgiveness. However, it cannot be said on this basis that God judged unjustly by granting forgiveness to the one and withholding it from the other. For the one who looks on the heart knows in what spirit the penitent is making his request and whether it deserves to be heard. And although it is dangerous to try to figure out God’s judgment, yet in the case of unbelievers, who reap the reward of their own minds, it cannot be said that God’s judgment is unjust.Look at the stories of Saul and David and ask yourself what happened to them after God’s judgment. Did Saul do what was right after he was refused mercy? Did he prove that God’s judgment was unjust? Did David after receiving mercy turn his back on God? Or did he remain in him from whom he received mercy?

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 390] Diodorus of Tarsus on Romans 9:16
God is not unjust simply because he does not give everyone what they deserve.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:16-17
As then in the one case, he means, some were saved and some were punished, so here also. This man was reserved for this very purpose. And then he again urges the objection.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:16
The Jewish argument here goes like this: “It does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs; God has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills.” The apostle, though, does not take away what we possess in our own will.… For if the Jewish argument is correct, why does Paul run, as when he says: “I have finished the race,” and why does he urge others to run? For this reason it is understood that here Paul takes the role of the one who questions (and refutes), not of the one who denies.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 420] Jerome on Romans 9:16
It is clear from this passage that the willing and running are ours, but the fulfillment of our willing and running belongs to the mercy of God. So it is that free will is preserved as far as our willing and running is concerned and that everything depends on the power of God as far as the fulfillment of our willing and running is concerned.

Source: Against the Pelagians 1.5
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:16
Paul does not take away the freedom of the will but says that our will is not sufficient unless God helps us, making us compassionate so that we might do good works by the gift of the Holy Spirit.… We cannot will unless we are called, and when we will after our calling neither our will nor our striving is enough unless God gives strength to our striving and leads us where he calls. It is therefore clear that it is not by willing nor by striving but by the mercy of God that we do good works, even though our will (which by itself can do nothing) is also present.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 62
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:17
It is certain that God not only knows everyone’s intention and will but that he foreknows them as well. Thus knowing and foreknowing, the good and just dispenser uses the motives and intention of each one in order to accomplish the works which the mind and will of each person has chosen.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:17
This Pharaoh (this was a royal title among the Egyptians and not a personal name, just as the rulers of Rome are called Caesars), was guilty of a great many crimes and unfit to live. He would never repent or in any way earn the right to live with God. But if anyone thought that God had made a mistake or that he was unable to take revenge on Pharaoh, let him listen to what God says.… Pharaoh was used by God in order that many signs and plagues might be revealed through him. Even though he was really dead, he appeared to be alive for a short while so that all those who were without God might be frightened by the punishment and the torments which they saw being inflicted on him and confess the one true God, by whom this revenge was being wreaked. In the same way the ancient physicians used to open up the bodies of people who deserved to die, while they were still alive, in order to find out what the causes of their disease might be and thus by punishing the dying bring saving health to the living.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:17
God endured Pharaoh for long time in the hope that he might repent, but even when he did not do so God was patient with him in order to display his own goodness and power, even if Pharaoh gained nothing from it.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:17
The Jews explain this passage in the wrong way as well. It is expounded by Christian interpreters in one of two ways. First, there are those who say that since each one will be punished when the measure and degree of his sins is complete … and Pharaoh had exceeded his limit, God desired to make an example of him for the benefit of others … so that God’s people might come to know his justice and power and neither dare to sin nor fear their enemies. The same thing that happened to Pharaoh happens when a doctor, seeking the cure for an illness, discovers a remedy in the course of torturing someone who has already been condemned to death for committing many crimes or when a judge, although he could punish a guilty man immediately, afflicts him first with various torments in order to rouse everyone’s fear.Second, there are those who say that Pharaoh was hardened by God’s patience, for after a plague from God was over Pharaoh became harder, and although God knew that Pharaoh had not repented he nevertheless wanted to show his forbearance even toward him.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:17
We read in Exodus [:] that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief. Nor should it be thought that Pharaoh did not obey because he could not, on the ground that his heart had already been hardened. On the contrary, Pharaoh had deserved his hardness of heart by his earlier unbelief. For in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith which is the beginning of merit, so that they might do good works by the gift of God. And in those whom he condemns unbelief and unfaithfulness are the beginning of punishment, so that by that very punishment they are permitted to do what is evil. on Romans Second, there are those who say that Pharaoh was hardened by God’s patience, for after a plague from God was over Pharaoh became harder, and although God knew that Pharaoh had not repented he nevertheless wanted to show his forbearance even toward him. Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans.
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:17
We read in Exodus [10:1] that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief. Nor should it be thought that Pharaoh did not obey because he could not, on the ground that his heart had already been hardened. On the contrary, Pharaoh had deserved his hardness of heart by his earlier unbelief.For in those whom God has chosen it is not works but faith which is the beginning of merit, so that they might do good works by the gift of God. And in those whom he condemns unbelief and unfaithfulness are the beginning of punishment, so that by that very punishment they are permitted to do what is evil.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 62
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Romans 9:17
God’s power is patience, and it is a very great power indeed. For who would not be overawed by the enormous patience of God? For he says that it is for this reason that he has agreed to let Pharaoh rule, that it may be shown how patient he is.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:18
Pharaoh’s heart was hardened in the following way: God did not want to punish him immediately and completely. Although Pharaoh’s wickedness was enormous, God in his patience did not withdraw the possibility of conversion from him. Instead he struck him lightly at first and then gradually increased the blows. But although God acted with patience, Pharaoh was hardened by that very thing and became even more angry with God and contemptuous of him.… Therefore it is not that God hardens whom he wills, but rather that whoever is not softened by his patience is thereby automatically hardened.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 382] Apollinaris of Laodicea on Romans 9:18
Someone may object that Pharaoh cannot have been hardened, nor can anyone else who falls into sin, since in that case they would not be guilty of the hardening which has come upon them. But in saying this, O Man, you are going beyond yourself and seeking the secret reason for this inequality in God. There is no injustice here, the apostle said, because the refusal to show mercy on a sinner is due to the foreknowledge of the divine wisdom and not to some judicial reward. In this respect the apostle goes on to say that it is not up to men to sound the hidden depths of God, for the message of salvation is properly administered to all, whether mercy is shown to them or not.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:18
Here Paul assumes the role of an objector who makes these assumptions.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:18-19
See what pains he takes to embarrass the subject in every way. And the answer he does not produce immediately, it being a useful thing not to do so, but he first stops the disputant's mouth, saying as follows,

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:18
If this is understood to mean that God has mercy on whom he wills and hardens whom he wills because there is enough wickedness, then your argument will be lost, viz., the argument that not you but the will of the Lord, to which there can be no opposition, is the cause of your sins. The very nature of God’s justice opposes this reasoning.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:18
He enables the one on whom he has mercy to do good, and he leaves the one whom he hardens to do evil. But that mercy is the result of the prior merit of faith, and that hardening is the fruit of prior unbelief, so that we do good deeds by the gift of God and evil deeds because of his punishment. Yet in either case free will is not taken away from man, whether it is to believe in God, so that mercy on us might follow, or to disbelieve in him, so that punishment on us might be the result.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 62
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:18
Why does the Father not teach all people in order that they might come to Christ, unless it is that all those whom he teaches, he teaches because of mercy, but those whom he does not teach, he does not teach because of judgment?

Source: PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS 8.14
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:18
You must believe that the man whom God permits to go astray and to become hardened has deserved this evil, while in the case of the man upon whom he has mercy, you must acknowledge with an unswerving faith that this is a case of the grace of God, who is rendering not evil for evil but good for evil.

Source: GRACE AND FREE WILL 23.45
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:19
It is certain that no one can resist God’s will, but it is good for us to remember that his will is just and right. Whether we are good or bad depends on our will, but it is God’s will that the bad person is destined to punishment and the good person is destined to glory.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:19
Paul teaches us first that nobody can resist God’s will because he is more powerful than anyone else. Next he teaches us that God is the Father of all and therefore does not want anyone to suffer evil. What God has made he wants to remain unharmed.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:19
Paul does everything he can to embarrass the questioner. He does not answer him right away either, but prefers to shut him up with a further question.… This is what a good teacher does. He does not follow his pupils’ fancy everywhere but leads them to his own mind and pulls up the thorns, and then puts the seed in and does not immediately answer all the questions put to him.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:19
Having given his conclusion [in the last verse] Paul plays devil’s advocate by asking a rhetorical question.… He responds to this question in a sensible way so that we might understand that the basic rewards of faith and of unbelief are made plain only to spiritual people and not to those who live according to the earthly man. Likewise with the way God in his foreknowledge elects those who will believe and condemns unbelievers. He neither elects the ones because of their works nor condemns the others because of theirs, but he grants to the faith of the ones the ability to do good works and hardens the unbelief of the others by deserting them, so that they do evil. This understanding, as I have said, is given only to spiritual people and is very different from the wisdom of the flesh. Thus Paul counters his inquirer so that he may understand that he first must put away the man of clay in order to be worthy to investigate these things by the Spirit.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 62
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 9:19
Having solved the question proposed [n. 765], the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills. First, he places the objection; secondly, the solution [v. 20; n. 788]. 787. First, therefore, he says: We have said that God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills. You will say to me then: Why does he still find fault? i.e., what need is there to inquire any further into the cause of the good and evil done here, since all things are attributed to the divine will, which is a sufficient cause, since no one can resist Him? Hence he continues: For who can resist his will?" I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven" (Ec 1:13). Or in another way: Why does he still find fault? i.e., why does God complain about men when they sin, as in Is (1:2): "some have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me." 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 can resist his will? 389 Or still another way: Why does he still find fault, i.e., why is man still required to do good and avoid evil: "He has showed you , O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you but o do justice, and love mercy and walk with your God?" (Mic 6:8). For it is useless to require of someone that which is not in his power. But nothing seems to lie in man’s power, according to the above, in which all things seem ascribed to the divine will, which cannot be resisted. He adds: For who can resist his will? As if to say: no one. "There is none that can resist they majesty" (Est 13:11). And this seems to be the Apostle's meaning. 788. Then (v. 20) he answers the question. To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does He will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one? Although a reason other God's will can be assigned, in the first question the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God's absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top an others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the to and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed. First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why He has mercy on this one and hardens that one; 390 secondly, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why He is merciful to some and hardens others [v. 22; n. 792]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he censures the questioner's presumption; secondly, he cites an authority which solves the question [v. 21; n. 790]; thirdly, he explains the authority [v. 21b; n. 791]. 789. First, therefore, he says: But who are you, O man, fragile and unknowing, to answer back to 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" (Jb 9:3). Again, as it says in Jb (39:30): "He who argues with God let him answer him." In this we are given to understand that man should not examine the reason for God's judgments with the intention of comprehending them, for they exceed human reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sir 3:22); "He that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory" (Pr 25:27). 790. Then (v. 20b) he cites the authority of Is (29:16): "Shall the thing made say of its maker, He did not make me?" Here it should be noted that if an artisan uses base matter to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all ascribed to the goodness of the artisan; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving-dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such base matter, say clay, he produced a vessel adapted to meaner uses, for example, for cooking or such, the vessel, if it could think, would have no complaint. But 391 it could complain, if from precious metals, such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses. But human nature has baseness about it from its matter, because as Gen (2:7) says: "God formed man of dust from the ground," and more baseness after being spoiled by sin, which entered this world through one man. That is why man is compared to dirt, in Jb (30:19) "I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes." Hence, any good that man possesses is due to God's goodness as its basic source: "O Lord, thou art our Father, we are the clay, and thou art the potter, we are all the work of they hand" (Is 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance man to better things but leaves him in his weakness and reserves him for the lowliest use, He does him no injury such that he could justly complain about God. 791. Then (v. 21) the Apostle explains the words of the prophet. As if to say What is molded, i.e., the vessel., should not say to the potter: Why have you made me thus?, because the potter is free to make anything he wishes out of the clay. Hence he says: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make without any injury to it out of the same lump of base matter one vessel for honor, i.e., for honorable use and another for dishonor, i.e., for meaner uses: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble." (2 Tim. 2:20). In the same way God has free power to make from the same spoiled matter of the human race, as from a clay, and without any injustice some men prepared for glory and some abandoned in wretchedness: "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel" (Is 18:6). 392 792. Then (v. 22) he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works ins the manifestation of divine goodness: "The Lord has made all things for himself" (Pr 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (1:20). But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which He is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom is justice is manifested with regard to those he benefits according to their deserts and His mercy in those He delivers by His grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in man He mercifully delivers some, but not all. First, therefore, he gives an account of the rejections of the wicked; secondly, of the election of the good [v. 23; n. 794]. 793. In both cases three differences should be considered. First, with respect to the end; secondly, with respect to use; thirdly, with respect to the divine act. Now the end of the rejection or hardening of the wicked is the manifestation of divine justice and power. Referring to this he says: What, i.e., But if God, desiring to show him wrath, i.e., retaliatory justice. For wrath is said of God not as an emotion but as the effect of retaliation: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Rom 1:18). Then he adds: and to make known his power, because God not only uses wrath, i.e., retribution, by punishing those subject to him, but also by subjecting them to himself by his power: 393 "According to his work by which he can subject all things to himself" (Phil 3:21); "And they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them" (Ex 14:31). The use which God makes of the wicked is wrath, i.e., punishment. And this is why he calls them vessels of wrath, i.e., instruments of justice that God uses to show wrath, i.e., retributive justice: "We were by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). But God’s action toward them is not that he disposes them to evil, since they of themselves have a disposition to evil from the corruption of the first sin. Hence he says fit for destruction, i.e., having in themselves an disposition towards eternal condemnation: "God saw that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times" (Gen 6:5). The only thing God does concerning them is that he lets them do what they want. Hence not without meaning does he say has endured. And the fact that he does not exact retribution immediately shows his patience; so he adds with much patience: "The most high is a patient rewarder" (Sir 5:4). 794. Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things. First the end, when he says in order to make known the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory. And this is the meaning of that he might show the riches of his glory, the riches concerning which he said above (2:4), "Or do you despise the riches of his goodness?" "God who is rich in mercy" (Eph 2:4). 394 And it is significant that he says in order to make known the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and reprobation of the wicked, carried out in accord with God’s justice, makes known and highlights the glory of the saints, who were freed from such misery as this. Second he describes their use, when he says for the vessels of mercy. He names them vessels of mercy because God uses them as instruments to show his mercy: "These were men of mercy" (Sir 44:10). Thirdly he sets out God’s action in their regard. For God does not merely endure them, as though they were of themselves disposed to the good, but rather he prepares and disposes them by calling them to glory. Hence he says which he has prepared beforehand for glory: "Preparing the mountains by your power." 795. Even to this point the Apostle uses an incomplete and suspensive construction, so that the meaning is: If God wants to do this, to have mercy on some and harden others, what can justly be said against it? As though to imply: Nothing. For he does not will to harden them in such a way that he compels them to sin, but rather he endures them so that they may tend to evil by their own inclination.
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:20
In the same way the potter, too, has it in his power, by tempering the blast of his fire, to modify his clayey material into a stiffer one, and to mould one form after another more beautiful than the original substance, and now possessing both a kind and name of its own. For although the Scripture says, "Shall the clay say to the potter? " that is, Shall man contend with God? although the apostle speaks of "earthen vessels" he refers to man, who was originally clay.

Source: On the Resurrection of the Flesh
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:20
I do not think that, if you are a faithful and discreet servant of God and want to understand and admire the wisdom of the Lord, he will say to you: “Who are you?” … If we want to know something of the secret and hidden things of God and if we are not people of lusts and contentions, then let us inquire faithfully and humbly into the judgments of God which are contained more secretly in holy Scripture. For even the Lord said: “Search the Scriptures,” knowing that these things are applicable not to those who are busy with other matters and only hear or read the Bible from time to time, but to those who with a pure and simple heart endeavor to open up the holy Scriptures by their labor and constant attention. I know well enough that I am not one of them! But anyone who is, let him seek and he will find.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:20
Such a rebuke does not refer to one who is faithful and lives a good and righteous life and has confidence towards God.… This rebuke is not for the faithful and the saints but for the unfaithful and the ungodly.

Source: ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.1.22
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:20
It is a great indignity and presumption for a man to answer back to God—the unjust to the just, the evil to the good, the imperfect to the perfect, the weak to the strong, the corruptible to the incorrupt, the mortal to the immortal, the servant to the Lord, the creature to the Creator!

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:20-21
Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which follows the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, "He couched, he lay down as a lion;" [Numbers 24:9] let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion. And again, when He says, "I will meet them as a bereaved bear" [Hosea 13:8], let us take the vindictiveness. And when he says, "our God is a consuming fire" [Hebrews 12:29], the wasting power exerted in punishing. So also here must we single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when he does go on to say, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, various incongruities will follow, for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice. There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever. For as the potter (he says) of the same lump makes what he pleases, and no one forbids it; thus also when God, of the same race of men, punishes some, and honors others, be not thou curious nor meddlesome herein, but worship only, and imitate the clay. And as it follows the hands of the potter, so do thou also the mind of Him that so orders things. For He works nothing at random, or mere hazard, though thou be ignorant of the secret of His Wisdom. Yet you allow the other of the same lump to make various things, and findest no fault: but of Him you demand an account of His punishments and honors, and will not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is not so; but since the same lump is of the same substance, you assert that there are the same dispositions. And, how monstrous this is! And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice. Still, as I said before, one must take this illustration to have one bearing only, which is that one should not contravene God, but yield to His incomprehensible Wisdom. For the examples ought to be greater than the subject, and than the things on account of which they are brought forward, so as to draw on the hearer better. Since if they were not greater and did not mount far above it, he could not attack as he ought, and shame the objectors. However, their ill-timed obstinacy he silenced in this way with becoming superiority. And then he introduces his answer. Now what is the answer?

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:20
This he does to take down the objector's unseasonable inquisitiveness, and excessive curiosity, and to put a check upon it, and teach him to know what God is, and what man, and how incomprehensible His foreknowledge is, and how far above our reason, and how obedience to Him in all points is binding. So when he has made this preparatory step in his hearer, and has hushed and softened down his spirit, then with great felicity he introduces the answer, having made what he says easy of admittance with him. And he does not say, it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that (5 manuscripts No, but what? That) it is presumptuous to raise them. For our business is to obey what God does, not to be curious even if we do not know the reason of them. Wherefore he said, "Who are you that repliest against God?" You see how very light he makes of him, how he bears down his swelling spirit! "Who are you?" are you a sharer of His power? [compare Job 38] nay, are you sitting in judgment upon God? Why in comparison with Him you can not have a being even! nor this or that sort of being, but absolutely none! For the expression, "who are you?" does much more set him at naught than "you are nothing." And he takes other ways of showing further his indignation in the question, and does not say, "Who are you that" answerest "God?" but, "that repliest against," that is, that gainsayest, and that opposest. For the saying things ought to be so, and ought not to be so, is what a man does that "replies against." See how he scares them, how he terrifies them, how he makes them tremble rather than be questioning and curious. This is what an excellent teacher does; he does not follow his disciples' fancy everywhere, but leads them to his own mind, and pulls up the thorns, and then puts the seed in, and does not answer at once in all cases to the questions put to him.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:20
Paul says this in order not to do away with free will but rather to show to what extent we ought to obey God. We should be as little inclined to call God to account as a piece of clay is. We ought to abstain not only from complaining or questioning but from even speaking or thinking about it at all, and instead we should become like that lifeless matter which follows the potter’s hands and lets itself be shaped in whatever way the potter wills.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:20
Some people say that Paul is still speaking here in the role of those who object, because to say that nobody can oppose the will of God, who has mercy on one and who hardens another, and to add that nobody should criticize God amounts to the same thing. But others say that from here on the apostle replies that, even if there were a reason for them to make an accusation, they ought not to talk back to their Creator, for in comparison with God, we are like a piece of pottery in the hands of the potter.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 9:20
How can the thing which is made blame its Maker for the construction of its own nature? Everything must be content with its own nature, whatever that may be.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:20
As long as you are just a creature, says Paul, like this lump of clay, and you have not been led to spiritual things, so that as a spiritual man you might judge all things and be judged by no one, it is right for you to hold back from this kind of inquiry and not to answer back to God. For everyone who wants to know God’s plan ought first to be received into his friendship, and this is only possible for spiritual people who already bear the image of the heavenly.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 62
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:20
If you did not have your own independence, and if you did not choose what you do by your own free will, you would have to be quiet in the way that inanimate objects are and simply acquiesce in what is given to you. But as it is you have reason, and you can both describe and do the things which are shown to you. Instead you do not like what has happened and are trying to investigate the causes of the divine plan.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:21
The vessel is the flesh, because it was made of clay by the breath of God, and only afterward was it clothed with the coat of skin.

Source: ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH 8
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:21
Remember the incident in Jeremiah when the prophet went down to the potter’s house and found him reworking a clay vessel which was spoiled, as it seemed good to him to do. Then the Lord said: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.” It seems to me that no more need be said on the subject.…Someone who does not cleanse himself and does not wash away his sins by repentance is a vessel fit only for menial use. If he goes on and increases in wickedness so that his mind is hardened and his impenitent heart ends up despising everything God commands, then he will no longer be fit even for menial use but will become a vessel fit only for destruction.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:21
If both the saved and the lost come from one lump of clay, then the nature of their souls will be not different but the same.

Source: ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.1.21
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:21
The substance of the clay is the same, but the will of the potter is different. Likewise God made us all of the same substance and we all became sinners, but he had mercy on one and rejected another, not without justice. The potter has only a will, but God has a will and justice to go with it. For he knows who ought to be shown mercy, as I have already said.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 390] Diodorus of Tarsus on Romans 9:21
Do not dare to condemn God or imagine that he showed mercy on one and hardened another by accident, for it was according to the power of his foreknowledge that he gave each one his due. Nor is he guilty because he knew in advance what would happen, but rather each of those who was foreknown in this way is responsible for his own actions, whether good or evil.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:21
God does nothing at random or by mere chance, even if you do not understand the secrets of his wisdom. You allow the potter to make different things from the same lump of clay and find no fault with him, but you do not grant the same freedom to God!… How monstrous this is. It is not on the potter that the honor or dishonor of the vessel depends but rather on those who make use of it. It is the same way with people—it all depends on their own free choice.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16.46
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 9:21
Whoever heard of a clay pot made for menial use blaming the potter for the way it was made and demanding to be remolded for some better purpose?

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:21
As long as you are a potter’s vessel, you must first be broken by the iron rod of which it was said: “You will rule them with a rod of iron, and you will break them as a potter’s vessel.” Then, when the outer man is destroyed and the inner man is renewed, you will be able, rooted and grounded in love, to understand what is the length and breadth and height and depth, to know even the overwhelming knowledge of the love of God. So because from the same lump of clay God has made some vessels for noble use and others for ignoble, it is not for you, whoever you are who still lives according to this lump (that is, who are wise by the standards of earthly sense and the flesh), to dispute what God has decreed.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 62
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:21
First comes the clay which is fit only to be thrown away. We must begin with this but need not remain in it. Afterward comes what is fit for use, into which we can be gradually molded and in which, once molded, we can remain. This does not mean that everyone who is wicked will become good but that no one becomes good who was not once wicked. What is true is that the sooner a man makes a change in himself for the better, the sooner he has a right to be called what he has become.

Source: City of God 15.1
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:21
Given that our nature sinned in paradise, we are now formed through a mortal begetting by the same divine providence, not according to heaven but according to earth, i. e., not according to the spirit but according to the flesh, and we have all become one mass of clay, i.e., a mass of sin.

Source: QUESTIONS 68.3
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:21
If this lump of clay were of such indifferent value that it deserved nothing good any more than it deserved anything evil, there would be reason to see injustice in making of it a vessel unto dishonor. But when through the free will of the first man alone, condemnation extended to the whole lump of clay, it is undoubtedly true that if vessels are made of it unto honor, it is a question not of justice not forestalling grace, but of God’s mercy. If however, vessels are made of it unto dishonor, this is to be attributed to God’s justice, not to his injustice—a concept which can hardly exist with God!

Source: LETTER 186
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:21
It would seem unjust that vessels of wrath should be made unto destruction if the whole lump of clay has not been condemned in Adam. The fact that men become vessels of wrath at birth is due to the penalty they deserve, but that they become vessels of mercy at their second birth is due to an undeserved grace.

Source: LETTER 190
[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on Romans 9:21
It is not possible to say on the basis of this [verse] that there are different types of human nature, nor does holy Scripture claim that some people have been made cruel or obdurate or even vessels of honor and wickedness, nor does it attribute this kind of nature to them. Rather, it should be understood to mean that some men are made like clay vessels and that we use them either for honor or for dishonor.

Source: EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:21
Those who are called vessels for menial use have chosen this path for themselves.… This is clear from what Paul says to Timothy: “If anyone purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.”

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:22
I am astonished when I examine the Holy Spirit’s purpose in the Scriptures. For he says that the wrath of God, which is foreign to his nature, will be made known to men … but that his goodness and mercy, which are proper to his nature, will be concealed and hidden.… Why should God reveal his wrath to men and conceal his mercy? No doubt it is because God knows that the human race is weak and prone to fall through negligence, and that it is therefore better for them to be under the fear of wrath than to relax in the hope of God’s mercy and forgiveness.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:22
This means that unbelievers are made ready for punishment by the will and longsuffering of God, which is his patience. For although he has waited a long time for them, they have not repented. He has waited a long time so that they should be without excuse, for God knew all along that they would not believe.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:22-23:24
What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath of God. For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calls him not only "a vessel of wrath," but also one "fitted for destruction." That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self. For neither had God left out anything of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out anything of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew this, "He endured him with much long-suffering," being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath, He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power. For that it is not God's wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul does not wish to appear powerful in this way ("not that we should appear approved," he says, "but that you should do that which is honest,") [2 Corinthians 13:7], much less does God. But after that he had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins but repented, He manifested His love toward man. But it does not say, love towards man, but glory, to show that this is especially God's glory, and for this He was above all things earnest. But in saying, "which He had afore prepared unto glory," he does not mean that all is God's doing. Since if this were so, there were nothing to hinder all men from being saved. But he is setting forth again His foreknowledge, and doing away with the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. And on this topic again he grounds a defense of his statement, which is no small one. For it was not in the case of the Jews only that some men perished, and some were saved, but with the Gentiles also this was the case. Wherefore he does not say, all the Gentiles, but, "of the Gentiles," nor, all the Jews, but, "of the Jews." As then Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey. For though the more part is of God, still they also have contributed themselves some little. Whence he does not say either, vessels of well-doing, or vessels of boldness (παρρησίας), but "vessels of mercy," to show that the whole is of God. For the phrase, "it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs," even if it comes in the course of the objection, still, were it said by Paul, would create no difficulty. Because when he says, "it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs," he does not deprive us of free-will, but shows that all is not one's own, for that it requires grace from above. For it is binding on us to will, and also to run: but to confide not in our own labors, but in the love of God toward man. And this he has expressed elsewhere. "Yet not I, but the grace which was with me." [1 Corinthians 15:10] And he well says, "Which He had afore prepared unto glory." For since they reproached them with this, that they were saved by grace, and thought to make them ashamed, he far more than sets aside this insinuation. For if the thing brought glory even to God, much more to them through whom God was glorified. But observe his forbearance, and unspeakable wisdom. For when he had it in his power to adduce, as an instance of those punished, not Pharaoh, but such of the Jews as had sinned, and so make his discourse much clearer, and show that where there were the same fathers, and the same sins, some perished, and some had mercy shown them, and persuade them not to be doubtful-minded, even if some of the Gentiles were saved, while the Jews were perishing; that he might not make his discourse irksome, the showing forth of the punishment he draws from the foreigner, so that he may not be forced to call them "vessels of wrath." But those that obtained mercy he draws from the people of the Jews. And besides, he also has spoken in a sufficient way in God's behalf, because though He knew very well that the nation was fitting itself as a vessel of destruction, still He contributed all on His part, His patience, His long-suffering, and that not merely long-suffering, but "much long-suffering;" yet still he was not minded to state it barely against the Jews. Whence then are some vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerns God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved. Having then given to the question that answer which was furnished by facts, in order to give his discourse the advantage of other testimony in its favor, he introduces the prophets also making the same declarations aforetime. For Hosea, he says, of old put this in writing, as follows:

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:22
Why are some people vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? It is by their own free choice. God, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not only to those who were saved that God showed kindness but to Pharaoh also, as far as he deserved. For both Pharaoh and God’s people had the advantage of God’s patience. And if Pharaoh was not saved it was because of his own will, since God had done as much for him as he had done for those who were saved.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:22
God put up with Pharaoh for a long time while Pharaoh blasphemed and oppressed his people with hard labor and even had ordered that innocent little children be put to death. By filling up the quota of their sins, people like Pharaoh become vessels worthy of wrath, and by their own doing they prepare themselves for destruction.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 9:22
What Paul is saying is this: God has made this present life one of struggles and not of reward, and he agrees that wicked men and good ones alike will be tested in both good and bad things in order to have an exact touchstone for the predestination of each person. In this way those who are good will follow the path of virtue and will cling to it through all the changes of life, neither boasting in the good times nor being unable to bear reverses. Wicked people, on the other hand, will in all circumstances be shown to be lovers of evil, ignorant of the reason for their good fortune when they enjoy it and exaggerating the wretchedness of their condition when they suffer grief. God gives each of these what they deserve in the next life.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:22
Paul has sufficiently demonstrated that the hardness of heart which came to Pharaoh came as the just deserts of his earlier unbelief. Yet God patiently endured his unbelief until the time came for him to mete out his punishment. God did this in order to correct those whom he had decided to set free from error and to lead them by calling them back to reverence and godliness, offering his aid to their prayers and sighings.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 63
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Romans 9:22
Of course God is not subject to the passion of wrath. It is when he does what we do when we are angry that he calls it “wrath,” so that we will understand what he means.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:23
The riches of God are made known when his mercy is shown toward those who are rejected by men and who are downtrodden, who put their hope not in their own riches or in their own strength but in the Lord.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:23
It is God’s patience and long-suffering that, just as he prepares the wicked for destruction, so also he prepares the good for their reward. For the good are those who have the hope of faith. God preserves everyone knowing what the destiny of each will be. Therefore, it is a sign of his patience that those who have been rescued from evil or who persevere in good works he prepares for glory.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:23
The Jews reproached the Gentiles because the latter were saved by grace, and they thought that by making this accusation they would bring shame on them. But Paul sets this insinuation aside, because if this brought glory to God, how much more would it bring glory to those through whom God was glorified?

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:23
In giving to some what they did not deserve God obviously wanted his grace to be gratuitous and therefore genuinely grace, and in not giving it to all he showed what all deserved. He is good in the benefit given to certain people and just in the punishment of others but good in all things, for it is good when that which is deserved is given, and just in all things, as it is just when that which is not merited is given without injury to anyone.

Source: GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE 12.28
[AD 542] Caesarius of Arles on Romans 9:23
We who were vessels of wrath through our first birth have deserved to become vessels of mercy through the second one. The first birth brought us forth unto death, but the second one recalled us to life. All of us were temples of the devil before baptism, but after baptism we were made ready to become temples of Christ.

Source: SERMON 229
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:24
God has called those whom he has prepared for glory, who he knew would persevere in faith, whether they are near at hand or far away.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:24
Since even then some of the Egyptians left with the children of Israel … so too now God has called not only Jews but also Gentiles to faith.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:24
God did not call all the Jews but only some of them. Nor did he call all the Gentiles but only some of them. From Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and godless men, in which both Jews and Gentiles belong to one lump, apart from the grace of God. If the potter out of one lump of clay makes one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, it is clear that God has made of the Jews some vessels for honor and others for dishonor, and similarly of the Gentiles.

Source: TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.19
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 9:24
After showing that God's grace is given to men as a result of God's election through which men are called to grace [n. 748], the Apostle shows that such election or calling applies not only to the Jews (as if they could boast on account of what is said in Dt (4:37): "He loved your fathers,") but also to the Gentiles. First, he states the intended proposition; secondly, he proves it [v. 25; n. 798] 396 thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 30; n. 807]. 797. First, therefore he says: We have states that God prepared the saints for glory, whom he also called, namely, by His grace, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles: "Is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also?" (Rom 3:29): "They shall adore him, every man from his own place, all the islands of the Gentiles" (Zeph 2:11). 798. The (v. 25) he proves the proposition: first, with respect to the Gentiles, secondly, the Jews [v. 27; n. 801]. In regard to the first he cites two texts from Hosea speaking fro the Gentiles: the first of these promises them God's gifts; the second, divine sonship [v. 26; n. 800]. 799. First, therefore, he says: As the Lord says in Hosea, because it was he who spoke in the prophets: "The spirit of the Lord spoke through me, his word is upon my tongue" (2 Sam 23:2). Hence, too, it says in Hosea (1:2) "When the Lord first spoke through Hosea." Here it should be noted that the Gentiles were cut off from three blessings for which the Jews were famous: first, divine sonship, by reason of which they were called the people of God, as though serving Him and obeying His precepts: "We are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his herd" (Ps. 96:7). But the Gentiles were alienated from the society of this people, as it says in Eph (2:12): "Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise." However, through Christ they have become God's people: "He gave himself for us to purify for himself a people of his own" 397 (*** 2:14). And that is what he says: Those who were not my people, i.e., the Gentiles, I will call my people, i.e., that they be my people. The second is the privilege of divine love: "The Lord loves the people of Israel" (Hos 3:1), because He offered them many benefits leading to special graces. From this love the Gentiles had formerly been excluded: "Alienated from God's truth because of the ignorance that is in them" (Eph 3:18). Hence, he says: and her who was not beloved, i.e., the Gentile races, I will call my beloved: "You who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13), "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of hi Son" (Rom 5:10). The third is deliverance from original sin through circumcision: "The Lord will have compassion on Jacob" (Is 14:1). But the Gentiles had no share in this compassion: "On the day you were born your navel string was not out and no eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you" (Ex 16:5). But later through Christ they obtained compassion: "He saved us in virtue of his own mercy" (*** 3:5). He cites this text from Hosea according to the Septuagint, in the place where our text has: "I will have mercy on her who was without mercy, and I will so to not my people, ‘You are my people’" (Hos 2:23). 800. Then (v. 25) he cites another text from Hosea in which they are promised the dignity of being sons of God, about which the Jews boasted because, as it says in Is (1:2): "Sons have I reared and brought up" and in Dt (32:6): "Is he not your father?" For the Gentiles not only were not called sons, which applies to those who serve God out of love and are led by the Sprit of God; they were not even worthy to be called 398 the people of God, which could apply at least to those who had received the spirit of servitude in fear. Hence, he says: And in the very place, i.e., in Judea, where it was said to them, i.e., to the Gentiles by the Jews speaking as though in God's person: You are not my people, because they did not consider them God's people, there, i.e., even among the believing Jews, they will be called sons of God. Or in the very place, i.e., in the entire world where they will be converted to the faith. This would indicate that they would not be converted in the same way as proselytes, who would leave their native land and journey to Judea. That this would not happen in the case of those converted to Christ is shown in Zeph (2:11): "To him they shall bow down, each in his own place." Therefore, to each one living in his own place, where it was said to them in former times, "You are not my people," there will be called sons of God by divine adoption: "To all who believed in his name, he gave them power to become children of God" (Jn 1:12). 801. Then (v. 29) he proves his proposition with respect to the Jews and presents two texts from Isaiah. The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe; the second particularly to the Apostle [v. 29; n. 806]. 802. First, therefore, he says: We have indicated what Hosea said about the Gentiles. But Isaiah cries out, i.e., clearly speaks about the conversion of Israel: "Cry, cease not, lift up they voice like a trumpet" (Is 58:1). In this first citation he first shows how few will be converted from Israel, saying: Although the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea: "Judah and Israel 399 were as many as the sand by the sea" (1Sam 4:20), only a remnant of them will be saved, i.e., not all, not the majority, but a certain few who will be left after the pruning: "I am become as one that gleaneth in autumn the grapes of the vintage" (Mic 7:1); "At the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace" (Rom 11:5). 803. Secondly, he cites the cause of salvation: first, the efficacy of the word of the gospel, saying: A fulfilling and brief word. Note here a twofold efficacy of the evangelical word. The first is that the word is fulfilling, i.e., perfective: "The law made nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19); but the Lord says, "I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill" (Mt 5:17), because He applied the truth to the figures of the Law, explained the moral precepts of the Law properly, removed occasions for transgressing them and even added counsels of perfection. Thus He said to the young man who had kept all the precepts of the Law: "One thing is lacking to you. If you would be perfect, go and sell what you possess and give to the poor" (Mt 19:21). For this reason He said to His disciples: "you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). The second efficacy is that the word is shortening. This is suitably joined to the first efficacy, because the more perfect a word is the more profound it is and, as a consequence, simpler and briefer. Now the word of the Gospel shortens the words of the Law, because it included all the figurative sacrifices of the Law in one true sacrifice, in which Christ offered himself as a victim for us (Eph 5:2). Furthermore, it includes all the moral precepts of the Law in the two precepts of charity: "On these two precepts depend the law and the prophets (Mt 22:40). 400 28 This sentence might also be rendered: "...because nothing of them remain to be fulfilled, which is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason." Hence he says shortening in equity, either because nothing is omitted of the multitude of figures and precepts of the law, but all are included in the brevity of the Gospel; or because nothing remains of them to be observed [but] what is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason:28 "All your commands are equitable" (Ps 118:72). 804. Secondly, (v. 28) he gives the reason for this efficacy, saying: For the Lord upon the earth, i.e., when He lives on earth as man: "Afterwards he was seen upon earth and conversed with men" (Bar 3:38), will execute his 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 Heb (1:1): "God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son." 805. Or, in another way: For the Lord, i.e., God the Father, will execute his brief word, i.e., incarnate, because the Son of God emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave. He is called brief, not because anything was subtracted from the fullness or greatness of His divinity, but because He underwent our exile and smallness. 806. Then (v. 29) he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the Apostles, saying: If the Lord of hosts had not left us, namely, in His mercy, seed, i.e., the word of the Gospel: "The seed is the word of God" (Lk 8:11); or seed, i.e., Christ; "And to your seed which is Christ" (Gal 3:16); or seed, i.e., the apostles: "That which shall stand therein shall be a holy seed" (Is 6:13), we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah. 401 For the sin of the Jews was greater than that of the men of Sodom: "The iniquity of my people has been greater than the sin of Sodom" (Lam 4:6) and "Your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done" (Ez 16:48). Consequently, it was an act of divine mercy that the Jews were not totally exterminated as were the Sodomites: "The mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed" (Lam 3:22). 807. Then (v. 30) he draws the conclusion from the above. First, with respect to the Gentiles; secondly, with respect to the Jews [v. 31; n. 809]. 808. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he draws his conclusion, saying: What shall we say, then, in the light of the foregoing/ I say it is this, namely, that the Gentiles have attained it, i.e., righteousness, by which they are called sons: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were justified" (1 Cor. 6:11). And this, indeed, from God's calling ad 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" (Eph 2:12). Secondly, he explains what he calls, righteousness through faith, i.e., not that which consists in works. For the Gentiles were not converted in order to observe the justice of the Law, but to be justified through faith in Christ: "The justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ upon all who believe" (Rom 3:22). 809. Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion as regards the Jews. 402 And first he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, i.e., the people of the Jews, who pursued the righteousness based on the law did not succeed in fulfilling the law. The law of righteousness is the law of the Spirit of life through which men are made righteous and which the Jewish people did not attain, although they pursued it by observing the shadow of this spiritual law: "The law has but a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1). Or who pursued the law of righteousness, i.e., the Law of Moses, which is the law of righteousness, if it is well understood, because it teaches righteousness. Or it is called the law of righteousness, because it does not make men truly, but only outwardly, righteous, as long as sins are avoided not from love but from fear of the punishment the Law inflicted: "Hearken to me, you who pursue that which is righteous and you that seek the Lord" (Is 51:1), "Hearken to me, you that know what is just, my people, who have my law in your heart" (Is 51:7). 810. Secondly, he states the cause, saying, Why? Because they did not observe the Law in the proper way. And this is what he says: Because they did not pursue it through faith, i.e., 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 the words of the law no human being shall be justified before him" (Rom 3:20). 811. Thirdly, he explains the cause assigned: "first, he presents the explanation, saying: They have stumbled over the stumbling-stone, i.e., Christ, Who is likened to a stumbling-stone; for just as a stone against which a man stumbles is not guarded against 403 because it is small, so the Jews, seeing Christ clothed with our weakness, did not guard against stumbling over Him: "His look was as it were hidden and despised. Whereupon we esteemed him not" (Is 53:3); "Before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains" (Jer 13:16), i.e., upon Christ and His apostles who are called dark mountains, because their great dignity is hidden. 812. Secondly, 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 Is (28:16): "behold, I will lay a stone in the foundations of Zion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation." From this he takes the first part of his quotation: Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, i.e., as a foundation, by which is meant that by divine command Christ was established as the foundation of the Church: "For no other foundation can anyone lay that that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Again it says in Is (8:14): "He shall be for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to the two houses of Israel." He uses this in the middle of the quotation where he says: A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall. Here the stumbling refers to their ignorance, because it says in 1 Cor (2:8): "if they had known this, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"; but the falling refers to their unbelief by reason of which they persecuted Christ and his apostles: "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews" (1Cor 1:23); "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel" (Lk 2:34). The end of the quotation is taken from Is (28:16): "He that believes, let him not hasten." In place of this he says: He who believes in him will not be put to shame, namely, 404 because he will receive a reward from Him: "Ye that fear the Lord, hope in him: and your reward shall not be made void" (Si 2:8).
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 9:25
And proclaim in what sense .
and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved.
And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said, This is not a people, there shall they be called the children of the living God."

Source: Against Heresies Book III
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:25
It is clear that this was said about the Gentiles, who once were not God’s people, but afterward, to the chagrin of the Jews, received mercy and are called God’s people. Once they were not loved, but when the Jews fell away they were adopted as children and are now loved, so that where once they were not called God’s people, now they are called children of the living God.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:25
Here to prevent their saying, that you are deceiving us here with specious reasoning, he calls Hosea to witness, who cries and says, "I will call them My people, who were not My people." [Hosea 2:23] Who then are the not-people? Plainly, the Gentiles. And who the not-beloved? The same again. However, he says, that they shall become at once people, and beloved, and sons of God.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:25
Hosea obviously was speaking about the Gentiles here.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:25
The gist of the entire argument leads to this conclusion. Paul taught that we do good by the mercy of God and that the Jews who had received the gospel should not glory in their works, thinking that they had deserved this and not wanting it to be given to the Gentiles. In Paul’s mind, the Jews should cease from such pride and understand that if we are called to faith not through our own works but by the mercy of God and if it is given to those who believe to do good, then they should not begrudge the Gentiles this mercy as if it had been given to the Jews on the ground of prior merit, which is nothing.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 64
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:25
This passage originally applied to Jews, not to Gentiles.… It meant that God’s people would lose their status and be called “Not my people” and “Not beloved.” But then God promised that the rejected Jews would be called back again. Thus from having been God’s people and then rejected they would return.… The Gentiles, on the other hand, would become God’s people for the first time, having never been his people before.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:26
But if they should assert that this was said of those of the Jews who believed, even then the argument stands. For if with those who after so many benefits were hard-hearted and estranged, and had lost their being as a people, so great a change was wrought, what is there to prevent even those who were not estranged after being taken to Him, but were originally aliens, from being called, and, provided they obey, from being counted worthy of the same blessings? Having then done with Hosea, he does not content himself with him only, but also brings Isaiah in after him. sounding in harmony with him.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:26
Even if this was said about those Jews who believed and not about the Gentiles, the argument still stands. For if those who had received so many benefits and then had become hard-hearted and estranged and had lost their identity as a people were turned around, … what is there to prevent those who were originally aliens from being called and counted worthy of the same blessings if only they obey?

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:26
Those who think that this is not Paul talking but the Jews interpret it to mean: “God saved as many as he wished, so that he chose even Gentile idolaters who had never served God, and called few from Israel, as Isaiah testifies.”

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:27
Paul says this because Isaiah was crying out for those who would believe in Christ. It is these who are the true Israel…. The others have gone away from the law because they have not believed in him whom the law promised would alone be sufficient for salvation. Therefore they became apostate, because by not accepting Christ they became lawbreakers. Therefore, of that great number only those who God foreknew would believe have been saved. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:27
That is, speaks out boldly, and uses no dissimulation. Why then lay a charge against us, when they afore declared the same thing with more than trumpet's loudness? And what does Isaiah cry? "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved." [Isaiah 10:22]

Do you see that he too does not say that all are to be saved, but that those that are worthy shall? For I regard not the multitude, he means, nor does a race diffused so far distress me, but those only do I save that yield themselves worthy of it. And he does not mention the "sand of the sea" without a reason, but to remind them of the ancient promise whereof they had made themselves unworthy. Why then are you troubled, as though the promise had failed, when all the Prophets show that it is not all that are to be saved? Then he mentions the mode of the salvation also. Observe the accuracy of the Prophet, and the judgment of the Apostle, what a testimony he has cited, how exceedingly apposite! For it not only shows us that those to be saved are some and not all, but also adds the way they are to be saved. How then are they to be saved, and how will God count them worthy of the benefit?

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:27
Not content with Hosea, Paul quotes Isaiah as well.… He does not say that all are to be saved either, but only those who are worthy.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:27
Here Isaiah showed that only a few Jews would believe.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:27
This shows that the Lord is the cornerstone, uniting both walls in himself. Hosea’s testimony is spoken of the Gentiles, but the Lord unites both Jews and Gentiles, according to what he said in the gospel about the latter: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.”

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 65
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 9:27
If by remnant … we are to understand not election of the justified to eternal life but election of those who are to be justified, that kind of election is truly hidden and cannot be known by us, who must regard all men as parts of a single lump of clay. If some claim to be able to know it, I must confess my own weakness in this matter.

Source: TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.22
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:28
Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness," He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance, to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord-that is, Christ" was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth."

Source: Against Marcion Book IV
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:28
This has been done in Christ, who said: “Moses wrote about me.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:28
What he means then is somewhat of this sort. There is no need of fetching a circuit, and of trouble, and the vexation of the works of the Law, for the salvation is by a very short way. For such is faith, it holds salvation in a few short words. "For if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved." [Romans 10:9] Now you see what this, "the Lord shall make a short word (LXX. lit.) upon earth," is. And what is indeed wonderful is, that this short word carries with it not salvation only, but also righteousness.

Ver 29. "And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and had been made like Gomorrha." [Isaiah 1:9]

Here again he shows another thing, that not even those few were saved from their own resources. For they too would have perished, and met with Sodom's fate, that is, they would have had to undergo utter destruction (for they (of Sodom) were also destroyed root and branch, and left not even the slightest remnant of themselves,) and they too, he means, would have been like these, unless God had used much kindness to them, and had saved them by faith. And this happened also in the case of the visible captivity, the majority having been taken away captive and perished, and some few only being saved.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:28
What this means is that salvation will come quickly, and it depends on very few words. There is no need to make a big palaver of it or get involved with the vexation of the works of the law.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:28
The historical sense is that, just as I shorten and finish off a sentence, so God will accomplish this with all speed. But in prophecy, the shortened sentence is understood to mean the New Testament, because everything is briefly summarized in it.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:29
What children are these that the Lord has left? No doubt this means what the apostle expounds elsewhere, when he says that it was said to Abraham: “I shall give this land to you and to your seed.” He did not say “to your seeds,” as if to many, but to your seed, as if to one, and that one is Christ.Nor was it an accident that Isaiah called the remnant a seed. It was so called because it was meant to be sown in the earth and bear much fruit. In this way he teaches that Christ must also be sown, that is, buried in the earth, from which he would rise and bear fruit in the whole multitude of the church.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:29
This seed, which alone remains reserved for the conversion of the human race is Christ and his teaching, as he himself said: “The seed is the Word of God.” Therefore what was long ago promised to us who have been delivered from the burden of the law remains for our redemption, so that by receiving the forgiveness of sins we might not be punished by the law and perish as Sodom did.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:29
This prophecy was actually fulfilled in the captivity, when most of the people were taken away and perished, with only a few being saved.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:29
Predicted is a good choice of words, because the same thing as he mentioned [in verses 27-28] was written even earlier. God did not allow a few righteous people to perish along with a host of the ungodly. Or this text may mean that this would have happened had Christ, Abraham’s offspring, not been sent to set the people free. The interpretation of the objectors, however, is that it would have happened, unless God had wished to call at least a few from among the Jews.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Romans 9:29
This may also be said of Christ, which is how Cyril of Alexandria interpreted it.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:30
It is one thing to pursue righteousness and another to have it implanted within. A person who tries by much teaching and reading to obtain something is said to pursue it.… In this sense, the Gentiles, who did not have the tables of the law or the written Word, cannot be said to have pursued righteousness. Nevertheless, they had it in them because the natural law had taught it to them. Therefore, they were close to that righteousness which is of faith, that is, to Christ.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:30
God is the true and lasting righteousness, if he is acknowledged. For what is more righteous that to know God the Father, from whom all things come, and Christ his Son, through whom all things come? Therefore the first part of righteousness is to acknowledge the Creator, and the next part is to keep what he commands.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:30-31
Here at last is the clearest answer. For since he had used a proof as well from facts ("for they are not all Israel that are of Israel") as from the case of the forefathers Jacob and Esau, and from the prophets Hosea and Isaiah, he further gives the most decisive answer, after first adding to the perplexity. The points discussed, then, are two; one that the Gentiles attained, and the other that they attained it without following after it, that is, without taking pains about it. And again in the Jews' case also there are two difficulties of the same kind; one that Israel attained not, the other that, though they took pains, they attained not. Whence also his use of words is more emphatical. For he does not say that they had, but that they "attained to righteousness." For what is especially new and unusual is, that they who followed after it attained not, but they which followed not after it attained. And he seems to be indulging them by saying, "followed after." But afterwards he strikes the blow home. For since he had a strong answer to give them, he had no fear of making the objection a little harsher. Hence he does not speak of faith either, and the righteousness ensuing thereon, but shows that before the faith even, on their own ground they were worsted and condemned. For thou, O Jew, he says, hast not found even the righteousness which was by the Law. For you have transgressed it, and become liable to the curse. But these that came not through the Law, but by another road, have found a greater righteousness than this, that, namely, which is of faith. And this he had also said before. "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has whereof to glory, but not before God" [Romans 4]: so showing that the other righteousness was greater than this. Before, then, I said that there were two difficulties, but now they have even become three questions: that the Gentiles found righteousness, and found it without following after it, and found a greater than that of the Law. These same difficulties are again felt in the Jews' case with an opposite view. That Israel did not find, and though he took pains he did not find, and did not find even the less. Having then thrust his hearer into perplexity, he proceeds to give a concise answer, and tells him the cause of all that is said. When then is the cause?

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:30
Paul means that the Gentiles did not go to particular trouble to acquire righteousness, in the way that the Jews did.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:30
If this is spoken in the person of the apostle, Paul here once again imagines that the Jews might say: “If it is not true, as we say, that it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, why have the Gentiles found righteousness, which they never sought before, while Israel could not find it, although they have always sought it?” But if the whole of the above thought belongs to the objectors, the apostle is here replying and summarizing the issue by saying: “What shall I say to these objections which are presented to us except that the Gentiles believed as soon as they were called and that the Jews refused to believe?” Righteousness is by faith, and the Jews refused to believe.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:31
Israel pursued the law of righteousness according to the letter but did not fulfill the law. What law? No doubt the law of the Spirit.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:31
Faith is the fulfilling of the law. It is because the Gentiles have faith that they appear to fulfill the whole law. But the Jews, who out of envy did not believe in the Savior, because they claimed the righteousness which is commanded in the law, i.e., the sabbath, circumcision, etc., did not come to the law. In other words, they did not fulfill the law, and those who do not fulfill the law are guilty of it.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:31
Paul explains once again why the Jews did not find righteousness. Having wrongly gloried in their works they refused to believe and rejected grace on the ground that they were righteous already.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:32
And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be "a stumbling-stone," if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:32
And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men," "a man set in the plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity: "to wit as having been set by the Father "for a stone of offence," and "made a little lower" by Him "than angels," He pronounces Himself "a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 9:32
The apostle would never say that they did not fulfill the law which they pursued, which they had and held in their hands. Rather he is explaining why Israel was unable to fulfill the law. It was because they relied on works, not on faith.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:32
The Jews rejected faith, which as I have said is the fulfillment of the law, and instead claimed that they were justified by works, that is, by the sabbath, the new moons, circumcision and so on. They forgot that Scripture says that “the just shall live by faith.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:32
This is the clearest answer in the passage, which if he had said immediately upon starting he would not have gained so easy a hearing. But since it is after many perplexities, and preparations, and demonstrations that he sets it down, and after using countless preparatory steps, he has at last made it more intelligible, and also more easily admitted. For this he says is the cause of their destruction: "Because it was not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law," that they wished to be justified. And he does not say, "by works," but, "as it were by the works of the Law," to show that they had not even this righteousness.

"For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone;"

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:32
The man who sees a stone does not stumble, but the blind man dashes himself against it. This is what happened to the Jews, who were blinded by their hatred and crucified Christ because they did not recognize him.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 9:32
It is impossible to be justified by the works of the law because it would be necessary to keep the whole law, which is not possible. But anyone who sins (which is inevitable) lies under the judgment of the law.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 471] Gennadius of Constantinople on Romans 9:32
Paul calls the Lord Christ a stumbling stone because those who did not accept the new covenant in him stumbled over him and by their unbelief fell from the grace of justification which was given to men through him.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:33
It was fitting that the mystery of the passion should be set forth in predictions, for the more incredible it was, the more likely it was to have been a stumbling stone if it had been openly predicted.

Source: AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS 10
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 9:33
Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed "for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence." I omit the rest of the passage.

Source: Against Marcion Book IV
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 9:33
There are many passages of Scripture where Christ is portrayed as a rock or a stone. The prophet Daniel calls him a stone which detaches itself without hands from the mountain, hitting and threatening all the kingdoms and filling the whole earth. This clearly refers to Christ. And in the law the rock from which the waters flowed is called Christ, as the apostle Paul himself testifies. And the apostle Peter says to the Jews: “This is the stone which the builders rejected.”The Jews did not want to compare Christ’s words with his deeds lest perhaps they might recognize that it was not absurd for him to say that he had come down from heaven.… This was the rock of offense as far as the Jews were concerned. The rock was undoubtedly the human flesh of the Savior. It detached itself without hands, because it was made of a virgin by the Holy Spirit without the participation of a male.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:33
You see again how it is from faith that the boldness comes, and the gift is universal; since it is not of the Jews only that this is said, but also of the whole human race. For every one, he would say, whether Jew, or Grecian, or Scythian, or Thracian, or whatsoever else he may be, will, if he believes, enjoy the privilege of great boldness. But the wonder in the Prophet is that he foretells not only that they should believe, but also that they should not believe. For to stumble is to disbelieve. As in the former passage he points out them that perish and them that are saved, where he says, "If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved. And, If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we should have been as Sodoma." And, "He has called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles;" so here too he implies that some will believe, and some will stumble. But stumbling comes of not taking heed, of gaping after other things. Since then they did give heed to the Law, they stumbled on the stone, "And a stone of stumbling and rock of offense" he calls it from the character and end of those that believe not.

Is then the language used made plain to you? Or does it still want much in clearness? I think indeed that, to those who have been attending, it is easy to get a clear view of it. But if it has slipped anybody's memory, you can meet in private, and learn what it was. And this is why I have continued longer upon this explanatory part of the discourse, that I might not be compelled to break off the continuity of the context, and so spoil the clearness of the statements. And for this cause too I will bring my discourse to a conclusion here, without saying anything to you on the more immediately practical points, as I generally do, lest I should make a fresh indistinctness in your memories by saying so much. It is time now to come to the proper conclusion, by shutting up the discourse with the doxology to the God of all. Let us then both pause, me that am speaking and you that are hearing, and offer up glory to Him. For His is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:33
This is said not of the Jews only but of the entire human race.… The wonder is that the prophet speaks not only of those who will believe but also of those who will not believe. For to stumble is to disbelieve.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 9:33
It was foretold that Christ would be the stumbling stone and the rock of offense precisely because many take offense at his birth and death. … Nobody who believes, not just the Jew, will be put to shame by former sins.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 9:33
People stumble when they stop paying attention to where they are going and look elsewhere. This is what happened to the Jews. Because they were so busy adding extras to the law, they failed to notice the stone which the prophets predicted.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS