Romans 9 · The Lantern

I speak the truth in Christ; I am not lying, as confirmed by my conscience in the Holy Spirit.

Paul, seeing that if, according to those things which he set forth above, he could be separated from the love of Christ by no power, whether heavenly or earthly, present or future, opposing him, it would seem contrary and incredible—what he was now proposing to say: that he wished to become anathema from that Christ whom he loved so inseparably, that is, to be made a stranger t…

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.

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

I have deep sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.

Consider, however, the greatness of the apostolic breast. He cannot be separated from the love of God; what he speaks, he speaks in Christ; what he holds in his conscience is contained by the Holy Spirit. What heavens, I ask, what thrones, what most ample minds of the heavenly powers will be able to contain the whole Trinity in seats so ample?

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.

Then he shows his affection for the Jews by the pain he suffered from their fall, when he says, that I have great sadness. First, he describes this pain; second, he mentions a sign of it, when he says, for I wished myself. He emphasizes how much pain he has suffered in three ways.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my own flesh and blood,

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, sha…

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…

Then he presents the sign of his sadness, saying, for I, who am so fervent in the love of Christ, as was shown above, wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren. Here it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word formed by combining ana which means 'above' and thesis which means 'placing,' so that something placed above is said to be anathema.

the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory and the covenants; theirs the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises.

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.

"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.

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

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them proceeds the human descent of Christ, who is God over all, forever worthy of praise! Amen.

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.

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.

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

It is not as though God’s word has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Since he had said above that for his brethren, "who are his kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites," he would wish even to become anathema, on the ground that theirs was both the adoption of sons, and the giving of the law, and the promises — concerning these he now says that the word of God has not failed, that is, the promise which was made to them has not come to…

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?"

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

Nor because they are Abraham’s descendants are they all his children. On the contrary, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.”

"Nor are all also sons because they are the seed of Abraham." This, evidently, was already being signified then in Abraham, when, though he had many sons — whom the Apostle calls sons of the flesh — the posterity of his seed was placed in Isaac alone, who was the son of the promise.

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.

Then he clarifies his statement, at but in Isaac. First, in regard to Abraham; second, in regard to Jacob, at and not only she. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying, but in Isaac will your seed be called. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Genesis 21, when describing the expulsion of Ishmael.

So it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as offspring.

"That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, these are counted for the seed." And observe the judgment and depth of Paul's mind.

Not I, he says, am explaining to you what the true seed of Abraham is, but the Old Testament, which says: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12). Therefore those who were born after the example of Isaac, that is, according to the promise, are truly children of Abraham, and especially of God. For everything was accomplished by the word of God.

Then he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis, when he says that is to say, not they who are the sons. To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Galatians: Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.

For this is what the promise stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

Not only that, but Rebecca’s children were conceived by one man, our father Isaac.

The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer 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 not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac." The subject in question was an important one. Hence he turns to several arguments, and endeavors by all means to solve the difficulty.

Then he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob, when he says and not only she. First, he states his intention; second, he clarifies his position, at for when the children were not yet born.

Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or evil, in order that God’s plan of election might stand,

not by works but by Him who calls, she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

So it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

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?

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

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Certainly not!

All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named "called." For there is no unrighteousness with God. Those of either race who have believed, are "a peculiar people." And in the Acts of the Apostles you will find this, word for word, "Those then who received his word were baptized;" but those who would not obey kept themselves aloof.

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?

After showing that by God's choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling, the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice. First, he raises a question; second, he answers it, at God forbid! For he says to Moses; third, he objects against the solution, at you will say therefore to me: why does he still complain?

For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

"For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," saith the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake.

"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." 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.

The text he adduces is from Exodus where the Lord said to Moses: I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me (Exod 33:19). But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: for the Lord says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I show mercy.

So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

What he said, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," is to be taken as David also says in the Psalm: "Unless the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain that build it.

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.

Then he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited, when he says so then it is not of him. This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one way thus: so a man's salvation is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action, which running is spoken of in 1 Corinthians: so run that y…

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

But let us also see of what sort is this which is said to Pharaoh: "For this very purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show in thee my power." It is certain that God not only knows the purpose and will of each one, but even foreknows it.

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.

Then he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked, when he says for the Scripture says. First, he quotes an authority; second, he draws the conclusion, at therefore he has mercy on whom he wills. He says, therefore: it has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity.

Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

But as for what he says, "Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens," he seems to take it from what is written in Exodus. For there he says: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he may not let the people go." Now Pharaoh's heart was hardened in this way. God was unwilling to bring upon him a sudden and full vengeance.

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.

Then when he says, therefore, he has mercy on whom he wills, he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited. From the statement I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, he concludes: therefore he has mercy upon whom he wills: the Lord has mercy on them that fear him (Ps 103:11); from the text, have I raised you, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills:…

One of you will say to me, “Why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?”

It is superfluous, then, what you say to the Apostle, O you who oppose: "Why then does he still find fault? For who resists his will?" It is certain indeed that no one withstands the will of God; but it is fitting that we know his will to be just and right.

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.

Having solved the question proposed, the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills (Rom 9:18). First, he places the objection; second, the solution, at O man, who are you.

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?”

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?

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.

Then he answers the question, at O man, who are you. To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise.

Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?

What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?

We have often given warning about the Apostle's unpolished modes of expression and their deficiencies, and this is found no less in the present passage. For what he says at the beginning of the chapter, "But if God, willing," is not brought round to any conclusion.

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.

Then, when he says what if God, willing, he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works is the manifestation of divine goodness: the Lord has made all things for himself (Prov 16:4).

What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory—

And again, "upon vessels of mercy" — that is, upon those who have cleansed themselves from every stain of sin, from which "no one is clean, not even if his life has been of a single day" — he makes known the riches of his glory: which vessels he prepared unto glory not by some unreasoning or fortuitous grace, but because they had themselves purged themselves of the aforesaid st…

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.

Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things. First, the end, when he says that he might show the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory.

including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?

But as to what he adds, "whom also he called, even us," it stands for what he would have said thus: Just as we, whom he called "not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles." For he seems to have pursued the preceding remarks as concerning Pharaoh, who was a vessel of wrath, and the children of Israel, who were vessels of mercy.

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.

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

As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people, and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,”

For this reason did Hosea the prophet take "a wife of whoredoms," prophesying by means of the action, "that in committing fornication the earth should fornicate from the Lord," that is, the men who are upon the earth; and from men of this stamp it will be God's good pleasure to take out a Church which shall be sanctified by fellowship with His Son, just as that woman was sancti…

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.

Then he proves the proposition, when he says as in Hosea he says: first, with respect to the gentiles; second, the Jews, at and Isaiah cried out. In regard to the first he cites two texts from Hosea speaking for the gentiles: the first of these promises them God's gifts; the second, divine sonship, at and it shall be in the place where it was said unto them.

and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

"For even they shall be called," he says, "the children of the living God." But if they should assert that this was said of those of the Jews who believed, even then the argument stands.

And even, what is more important, sons of the living God. If someone should say that this was spoken about the Jews who had conducted themselves ungratefully but were afterwards received into grace, such an argument does not harm our explanation. For if this acceptance happened with them, what prevented it from happening with the Gentiles?

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

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.

After he had, through that wisdom of God which Paul speaks among the perfect, set forth the secret and hidden things of the divine dispensation, and had shown by what reasoning and in what order God either displays his wrath in the vessels of wrath or the riches of his glory in the vessels of mercy; and had taught that each one becomes a vessel of wrath from this, that by his o…

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."

Then, when he says Isaiah cried out, he proves his proposition with respect to the Jews and presents two texts from Isaiah. The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe; the second particularly to the apostles, at and Isaiah foretold.

For the Lord will carry out His sentence thoroughly and decisively in righteousness, because He will cut short the matter on the earth.”

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 di…

"He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness," he says, "because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." 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.

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

It is just as Isaiah foretold: “Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have resembled Gomorrah.”

"And as Isaiah foretold," he says, "Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have become as Sodom, and should have been made like unto Gomorrah." What seed does Isaiah say was left by the Lord? That, without doubt, which the same Apostle expounds elsewhere, when he says that it was said to Abraham: "To you will I give this land, and to your seed.

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.

Then, when he says and as Isaiah foretold, he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the apostles, saying: and as Isaiah foretold: unless the Lord of the Sabbaoth, that is, of armies or power, had left us, namely, in his mercy, a seed, i.e., the word of the Gospel: the seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11); or a seed, i.e., Christ; and to your seed which is Christ (Gal 3:16);…

What then will we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have laid hold of righteousness — that righteousness, however, which is of faith." Perhaps this may seem contrary either to those things we said above, that each one should cleanse and purge himself, that he may become a useful vessel and a vessel of mercy; or to those things we discussed earlier,…

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 th…

Then he draws the conclusion from the above, when he says what then shall we say? First, with respect to the gentiles; second, with respect to the Jews, at but Israel. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he draws his conclusion, saying: what then shall we say, in the light of the foregoing?

but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

"But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law." This passage too, as we said above must be observed, names "law" in different senses within one and the same verse. For it is certain that Israel pursued the law of righteousness according to the letter, but did not attain to the law. What law? Without doubt, that of the spirit.

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.

Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion as regards the Jews. And first he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, i.e., the people of the Jews, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice.

Why not? Because their pursuit was not by faith, but as if it were by works of the law. For they stumbled over the stumbling stone,

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.

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.

Second, he assigns the cause, saying, why is it that although they observed the law, they did not fulfill the law? Because they did not observe the law in the proper way. And this is what he says: because they sought it not by faith, i.e., they sought to be made just not through faith in Christ but as it were of works.

as it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense; and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”

Romans9