ACC ~ Romans 9 v1 - 13

OVERVIEW:

The conscience bears witness to the truth. Paul’s love for the Jews and his desire for their salvation was such that he was prepared to wish the impossible: that he should himself be cut off from Christ. Evidently the apostle’s hyperbole was subject to misunderstanding, since some of the Fathers felt obliged to reassure their readers that he did not mean what he was saying. Paul’s detailed listing of Jewish privileges was respected by the Fathers, but they did not elaborate on them much. It was clear to them that the apostle was referring to the Jews of the Old Testament, not to their own contemporaries, who had rejected Christ. Even in Old Testament times not all of Abraham’s children inherited the promise, but only Isaac. Similarly, in the next generation Esau was rejected, but Jacob was chosen. It was therefore impossible to sustain the notion that the promise made to Abraham was ever meant to apply to all his physical descendants. Furthermore, although Isaac was Abraham’s natural son, he was born by supernatural means, thereby prefiguring Christ. There is a strong predestinarian note in the account of Jacob and Esau, which the Fathers found difficult to deal with. They were always concerned to insist that Esau had a free choice and that if he had behaved differently, he would not have been rejected. However, they were usually prepared to accept that God knew in advance what would happen, even if he was not the unilateral cause of it, so that there was no real possibility of things turning out otherwise. Only Augustine, and then only in his later writings, was prepared to accept the full implications of divine predestination.

9:1 | Speaking the Truth in Christ

I AM SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN CHRIST. ORIGEN: 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,” 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. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CONSCIENCE BEARS ME WITNESS. PELAGIUS: 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. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

I AM NOT LYING. GENNADIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE: 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. PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH.

9:2 | Sorrow and Anguish

HIS LOVE FOR THE JEWS. AMBROSIASTER: 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. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

PELAGIUS: 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. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

UNCEASING ANGUISH IN MY HEART. THEODORET OF CYR: The construction here is incomplete. Paul should have added that his unceasing anguish was due to the rejection or unbelief of the Jews. INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS.

9:3 | For the Sake of My Kinsmen

ACCURSED FOR THE SAKE OF MY BRETHREN. ORIGEN: Why be surprised that the apostle desires to be cursed for his brethren’s sake, when he who is in the form of God emptied himself and took on the form of a servant and was made a curse for us? Why be surprised if, when Christ became a curse for his servants, one of his servants should become a curse for his brethren? COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CUT OFF FROM CHRIST? CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16.

PAUL’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE JEWS. CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16.

CONFESSING HIS SORROW. [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Lest anyone think that Paul is here contradicting what he said earlier, 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. THE HOLY LETTER OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

“I COULD WISH” AS A PAST REFERENCE. PELAGIUS: 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. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

9:4 | To the Israelites Belongs the Sonship

TO THEM BELONGS THE SONSHIP. ORIGEN: Israel was adopted by God and given the sonship: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God; for the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”

“The covenants” and “the giving of the law” seem to be much the same thing. But I think there is this difference between them, that the law was given once, by Moses, but covenants were given frequently. For every time the people sinned and were cast down, they were disinherited. And every time God was propitiated and he called them back to the inheritance of their possession, he renewed the covenants and declared them to be heirs once more.

“The worship” refers to the priestly sacrifices. “The promises” are those which were made to the patriarchs and which are given to all who are called children of Abraham. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

PELAGIUS: “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. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

9:5 | To the Israelites Belong the Patriarchs and Christ

GOD WHO IS OVER ALL. ORIGEN: It is clear from this passage that Christ is the “God who is over all.” The one who is over all has nothing over him, for Christ does not come after the Father but from the Father. The Holy Spirit is also included in this, as it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord fills the earth, and whoever contains all things knows every sound.” So if the Son is God over all and the Spirit is recorded as containing all things, it is clear that the nature and substance of the Trinity are shown to be one and over all things. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

OF THEIR FLESH IS THE CHRIST. AMBROSIASTER: 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. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

DAVID’S SON IS DAVID’S LORD. AUGUSTINE: The Jews, who held only the first part of this confession, are refuted by the Lord. For when he asked them whose son they said Christ was, they answered “David’s.” This is true according to the flesh. But concerning his divinity … they answered nothing. Therefore the Lord said to them: “Why did David, in the Spirit, call him Lord?” in order that they might realize that they had only confessed that Christ is the son of David and had not said that Christ is Lord of this same David. The first fact is true according to his assumption of flesh, the other accordingto the eternity of his divinity. AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 59.

TO THEM BELONG THE PATRIARCHS. PELAGIUS: The patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Paul writes here against the Manicheans, Photinus and Arius because Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, and God, blessed forever. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

CUT OFF FROM THE HOPE. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: 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. EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS.

9:6 | God’s Word Has Not Failed

NOT ALL DESCENDED FROM ISRAEL BELONG TO ISRAEL. DIODORE: 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. PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH.

NOT AS THOUGH THE WORD FAILED. [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Although the apostle grieves that the Jews have failed to obtain the grace of the promise, he nevertheless shows that the Word of God was not in vain and that the things which were promised are owed not to them who were born of Abraham, Isaac and Israel according to the flesh but to those who keep the faith of the patriarchs and are therefore reckoned to be of their seed. THE HOLY LETTER OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

PELAGIUS: 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?” PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

9:7 | Children of Abraham

NOT ALL ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM. DIODORE: 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. PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH.

NOT ALL ARE WORTHY. AMBROSIASTER: What Paul wants us to understand is that not all are worthy because they are children of Abraham, but only those who are children of the promise, that is, whom God foreknew would receive his promise, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. … Abraham believed and received Isaac on account of his faith, because he believed in God. By this the mystery of the future faith was indicated, that they would be brothers of Isaac who had the same faith by which Isaac was born, because Isaac was born as a type of the Savior by the promise. Thus whoever believes that Christ Jesus was promised to Abraham is a child of Abraham and a brother of Isaac. Abraham was told that all the nations would be blessed in his offspring. This happened not in Isaac, but in him who was promised to Abraham in Isaac, that is, Christ, in whom all the nations are blessed when they believe. Therefore the other Jews are children of the flesh, because they are deprived of the promise and cannot claim Abraham’s merit, because they do not follow the faith by which Abraham is counted worthy. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

THROUGH ISAAC SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE NAMED. PELAGIUS: 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. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

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

9:8 | Children of God

CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE. CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16.

CHILDREN OF THE FLESH. PELAGIUS: Ishmael was born of a maidservant by sexual intercourse, but Isaac was begotten by supernatural means from old people, by God’s promise. So the promise, which Abraham’s faith merited, now makes Christians sons of Abraham, so that Abraham is indeed the father of many nations. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

9:9 | The Promised Son

THE SON PROMISED. AMBROSIASTER: This prefigures Christ, because Christ was promised to Abraham as a future son, in whom the word of the promise would be fulfilled. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON. CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16.

AUGUSTINE: This passage [to v. 29] is rather obscure. TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.1.

9:10 | Two Different Peoples

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

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

PELAGIUS: God’s foreknowledge does not prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

THEODORET OF CYR: 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. INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS.

9:11 | Elect by Grace, Not Merit

THEY HAD DONE NOTHING EITHER GOOD OR BAD. ORIGEN: 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. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

THAT GOD’S PURPOSE OF ELECTION MIGHT CONTINUE. AMBROSIASTER: 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. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON ROMANS 16.

NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS. AUGUSTINE: This moves some people to suppose that the apostle Paul had taken away the freedom of the will, by which we either please God by the good of faithfulness or offend him by the evil of unfaithfulness. These people say that God loved the one and hated the other before either one was born or could have done either good or evil. But we reply that God did this by foreknowledge, by which he knows what even the unborn will be like in the future. But let no one say God chose the works of the man whom he loved, although these works did not yet exist, because he knew in advance what they would be. If God elected works, why does the apostle say that election is not according to works? Thus we should understand that we do good works through love, and we have love by the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says himself: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.”

Therefore no one should glory in his works as if they were his own, for he does them by the gift of God, since love itself works good in him. What then has God elected? If he gives the Holy Spirit, through whom love works good, to whomever he wishes, how does he choose whom to give him to? If he does not choose according to merit, it is not election, for everyone is equal prior to merit, and it is impossible to choose between totally equal things. But since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not choose works (which he himself bestows), for he gives the Holy Spirit so that through love we might do good works. Rather, he chooses faith.

For unless each one believes in him and perseveres in his willingness to receive, he does not receive the gift of God (i.e., the Holy Spirit), through whom, by an outpouring of love, he is enabled to do good works. Therefore God did not choose anyone’s works (which he himself will give) by foreknowledge, but by foreknowledge he chose faith. He chose the one whom he knew in advance would believe in him, and to him he has given the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he may attain everlasting life.

Belief is our work, but good deeds belong to him who gives the Holy Spirit to believers. This argument was used against certain Jews who, once they believed in Christ, gloried in the works they had done before receiving grace. They claimed that they had merited the grace of the gospel by these earlier works, even though only a person who has received grace can do good works. Furthermore, grace is such that the call comes to the sinner when he has no merit and prevents him from going straight to his damnation. But if he follows God’s call of his own free will, he will also merit the Holy Spirit, through whom he can do good works. And remaining in the Spirit (also by free will) he will merit eternal life, which cannot be marred by any corruption. AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 60.

BECAUSE OF HIS CALL. AUGUSTINE: 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. TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.1.

THOUGH NOT YET BORN. AUGUSTINE: 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. LETTER 217.

PELAGIUS: Perhaps this happened so that it might be shown that even from a set of twins the one who does not believe is abandoned. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

9:12 | Good Works Produced by Grace

JACOB HAD NO MERITORIOUS WORKS BEFORE HE WAS BORN. AUGUSTINE: 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. TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.3.

PELAGIUS: Here Paul shows that the people who came afterward belonged to the promise after the manner of Isaac. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

9:13 | Choosing One, Rejecting Another

THE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND JUSTICE OF GOD. AMBROSIASTER: These things are said of the Jews … for not all who are called children of Abraham deserve to be so called, as I have already pointed out. Therefore Paul restricts his grief to the fact that he discovered that it was long ago predicted that not all would believe, and he grieves for them only because they refused to believe out of jealousy. They had the opportunity, however, as Paul demonstrates. At the same time, there was no point in grieving over those who were not predestined to eternal life, for God’s foreknowledge had long ago decreed that they would not be saved. For who would cry over someone who is long dead? But when the Gentiles appeared and accepted the salvation which the Jews had lost, Paul’s grief was stirred, but this was mainly because they were the cause of their own damnation.

God knew those who would turn out to be people of ill will and he did not number them among the good, although the Savior said to the seventy-two disciples whom he chose as a second class and who later abandoned him: “Your names are written in heaven.” But this was because of justice, since it is just that each person should receive his reward. For because they were good they were chosen for this service, and their names were written in heaven for the sake of justice, as I have said. But according to foreknowledge they were among the number of the wicked. For God judges according to his justice, not according to his foreknowledge. Thus he said to Moses: “If someone sins against me, I shall delete him from my book.” The person who sins is deleted according to the justice of the Judge, but according to his foreknowledge his name was never in the book of life. The apostle John described these people as follows: “They went out from us but they were never of us, for if they had been of us they would have remained with us.” There is no respect of persons in God’s foreknowledge. For God’s foreknowledge is that by which it is defined what the future will of each person will be, in which he will remain, by which he will either be condemned or rewarded. Some of those who will remain among the good were once evil, and some of those who will remain among the evil were once good. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

WHETHER GOD HATES NOTHING HE HAS MADE. AUGUSTINE: 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. TO SIMPLICIAN ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS 1.2.18.

[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. THE HOLY LETTER OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

PROPHECY FULFILLED IN REBECCA’S DESCENDANTS. PELAGIUS: The apostle shows that what had been told to Rebecca was fulfilled in her descendants. PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.

THEODORET OF CYR: 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? INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS.

GENNADIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE: It was many years after the event that Scripture testified to this in the words of the prophet Haggai [Malachi]. Paul added this quotation because he wanted to show that God’s judgment is just, for while it was in accordance with his foreknowledge, the lives of both men later followed these different paths. PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH.