What Caiaphas said was also true: It is ex- pedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish,^[1] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The construction here is incomplete. Paul should have added that his unceasing anguish was due to the rejection or unbelief of the Jews.

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?^[1] Why be surprised if, when Christ became a curse for his servants, one of his servants should become a curse for his brethren?

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.

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. ^[1] CONFESSING HIS SORROW. [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Lest anyone think that Paul is here contradicting what he said earlier,^[1] what he means is this. He is not now choosing to be accursed and cut off from Christ; rather, he chose that during the time when he persecuted Christ and his church, obeying the will of his brethren and relatives. Now he is confessing his sorrow because, while he has since merited the grace of apostleship, they continue in sin and are deprived of the promise of such great good. ^[2]

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.

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.^[1]

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.^[2] 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.

The sonship belongs to the Jews, for of them it was said: Israel, my firstborn son.^[1] They had the old law and the promise of the new law.

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.^[1] 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.

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.

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.^[1] 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?^[2] 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.

The patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.^[1] Paul writes here against the Manicheans, Photinus and Arius because Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, and God, blessed forever.

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.

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. ^[1] NOT ^[1]

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?

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.

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.^[1] 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.^[2] 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.

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.^[1]

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.^[1] 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.

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.

Ishmael was born of a maidservant by sexual intercourse, but Isaac was begotten by supernatural means from old people, by God’s promise.^[1] So the promise, which Abraham’s faith merited, now makes Christians sons of Abraham, so that Abraham is indeed the father of many nations.^[2]

This prefigures Christ, because Christ was promised to Abraham as a future son, in whom the word of the promise would be fulfilled.

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.

This passage [to v. 29] is rather obscure.

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.^[1] 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.

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.^[1] 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.^[2]

God’s foreknowledge does not prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.^[1]

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps this happened so that it might be shown that even from a set of twins the one who does not believe is abandoned.

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.

Here Paul shows that the people who came afterward belonged to the promise after the manner of Isaac.

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.^[1] 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.^[2] 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.^[3] There is no respect of persons in God’s foreknowledge.^[4] 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.

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. ^[1] [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: In this passage Paul conflates Genesis [25:23-25] with Malachi [1:1-2], both of which he regards as being equally the Word of God. ^[1]

The apostle shows that what had been told to Rebecca was fulfilled in her descendants.^[1]

Thus God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael and the children of Keturah.^[1] 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?

It was many years after the event that Scripture testified to this in the words of the prophet Haggai [Malachi].^[1] 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.

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.

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.

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 judg-ments of God, which are often hidden but are never unjust.

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.

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.

God was telling Moses^[1] 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!

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.^[1]

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. ^[2] [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: God says this to Moses.^[1] Referring to the passage the apostle shows that God’s compassion will be shown to those who believe in Christ. ^[2]

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.

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.^[1] 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.^[2] In the same way, we can say that it depends not upon man’s will or exertion but upon God’s mercy.

God is not unjust simply because he does not give everyone what they deserve.

When Saul asked forgiveness for his sin he did not receive it, but David, when he confessed his sin, did receive forgiveness.^[1] 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 de-serves 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?

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.

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. ^[1] [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: From here to [verse 19] the apostle Paul assumes the role of devil’s advocate, saying that we do not have it in us to do either good or evil, but that this is found only in the will of God. The actual words of the devil’s advocate are taken from Isaiah.^{[1] [2]}

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,^[1] and why does he urge others to run?^[2] 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.

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.

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.^[1] 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.

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.

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.^[1]

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.

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.

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.

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,^[1] for the message of salvation is properly administered to all, whether mercy is shown to them or not.

Here Paul assumes the role of an objector who makes these assumptions.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,^[1] 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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.^{[1] [2]} THIS VESSEL CANNOT RIGHTLY SCOLD THIS POTTER. [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Now the apostle lunges out at the man who was contradicting him [in the above verses], showing that it is of God’s own will and decision. . . . There is no difference in the clay which the potter molds in his hand. He can make whatever kind of vessel he wants to, and the vessel cannot answer back and say how it would prefer to be made. But here, in words like resist and find fault with God’s will, he shows the free will of the one who dares to draw back from the will of God. ^[1]

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.

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.

The vessel is the flesh, because it was made of clay by the breath of God,^[1] and only afterward was it clothed with the coat of skin.

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.^[1] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.^[1] 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.^[2] 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?^[1]

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.^[1]

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.^[1]

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.

This means that unbelievers are made ready for punishment by the will and long-suffering 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,^[1] for God knew all along that they would not believe.

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.

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. ^[1] MADE FOR DESTRUCTION. [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: God desires a response, because his patience and goodness makes those who have their own will live either as vessels of wrath or as vessels of mercy. Here the apostle deprives them of any reason to start sinning. Despite God’s patience they have not been converted to the right way. They are being prepared for destruction because it is always unjust to endure sinners and allow the evil things which they do to go unpunished. Therefore, just as punishment is being prepared for sinners, so eternal glory is being prepared for those who fear God.^{[1] [2]}

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.^[1] 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.

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.

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.

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.^[1]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hosea obviously was speaking about the Gentiles here.

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.

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 re-jected 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.

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? ^[1] [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Paul is referring to the Gentiles who would believe in Christ. ^[1]

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.

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.

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.

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.^[1]

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.

Here Isaiah showed that only a few Jews would believe.

This has been done in Christ, who said: Moses wrote about me.^[1]

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.

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.

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.^[1] He did not say to your seeds, as if to many, but to your seed, as if to one, and that one is Christ.^[2]

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.

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.^[1] 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.

This prophecy was actually fulfilled in the captivity, when most of the people were taken away and perished, with only a few being saved.^[1]

Predicted is a good choice of words, because the same thing as he mentioned [in verses 27-28] was written even earlier.^[1] God did not allow a few righteous people to perish along with a host of the ungodly.^[2] 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.

This may also be said of Christ, which is how Cyril of Alexandria interpreted it.

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.

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.

Paul means that the Gentiles did not go to particular trouble to acquire righteousness, in the way that the Jews did.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.^{[1] [2]} [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Paul says this because the Jewish people, thinking that they could be justified by the works of the law, were unable to come to the law of righteousness, that is to say, to faith in Christ. ^[1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.^[1] 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.^[2] And the apostle Peter says to the Jews: This is the stone which the builders rejected.^[3]

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.

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.

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.^[1] . . . Nobody who believes, not just the Jew, will be put to shame by former sins.

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.