The following comes from
Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (British
Academy Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 309-11 (note how
this commentary is very much opposed to
the theology and presuppositions underlying Reformed theology):
Translation of the γ-text of Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on the
Pauline Epistles on Rom. 9:11–16 (with some text omitted). Text taken from
Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in epistulas Pauli (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1,
pp. 313–21).
At one point I have added the α-text between asterisks because it
contains a significant alternative interpretation.
‘Rom. 9:11–13: For when they were not yet born nor had they
done anything either good or bad, so that God’s plan might continue according
to his election, it was said not on the basis of works but on the basis of the
calling, that the elder would serve the younger, as it is written: I loved
Jacob, but Esau I hated [Mal. 1:2–3]. That is in Malachi. Paul proclaims
God’s foreknowledge in these matters because nothing else can happen other than
what God knows will happen. For through his knowledge of what each of them will
be in the future, he said: “This one will be worthy, who will be the younger,
and the one who will be older will be unworthy.” He chose one and rejected the
other as a result of his foreknowledge. And God’s plan continues with regard to
the one he chose because nothing can happen except what He knows and has
planned with regard to him, that he will be worthy of salvation. And concerning
him whom God rejected, likewise God’s plan continues, that he planned
concerning him, because he will be unworthy. This God does as one who knows the
future and not as a respecter of persons [Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11], for he
condemns no one before they should sin, and he crowns no one before they should
conquer. This relates to the case of the Jews who defend their previous privilege
as sons of Abraham.’
[The author then says that Paul was consoling himself about the
fact that some Jews did not believe by reminding himself that God had foreseen
that some would not believe.]
‘And so he lessens his grief by finding that it was once predicted
that they would not all believe, so that he should only grieve for these who
through ill‑will would not at all believe. Yet they are able to believe, which
he shows through what he adds subsequently. However, the predicted unbelievers
should not be greatly grieved over, because they have not been predestined to
life; for the foreknowledge of God decreed long ago that they should not be saved.
For who would mourn someone who is long previously considered dead? But when
the gentiles appeared, who previously were without God, and accepted the
salvation which the Jews lost, his grief was revived; but then once again it is
calmed because they are the cause of their own damnation. And so, knowing in
advance those people who will be of evil will, God did not have them in the
roll of the good, although the Saviour said to the seventy‑two disciples whom
he chose as a second class, and who later abandoned him: Your names are
written in heaven [Luke 10:20]. But this was on account of justice, because
this is just, that each person should receive a response in accordance with
merit; for because they were good, they were chosen for the ministry and their
names were written in heaven for the sake of justice, as I said; but according
to foreknowledge they were among the number of the wicked. For God judges
according to justice, not according to foreknowledge. Thus he said to Moses: If
someone sins against me, I shall delete him from my book [Exod. 32:33], so
that according to the justice of the judge his name should be seen to be
deleted at that time when he should sin, but according to foreknowledge his
name was never in the Book of Life. For this reason the apostle John too says
of such a person: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if
they had been of us, they would have remained with us [1 John 2:19]. There
is no respect for persons in the foreknowledge of God. For the foreknowledge of
God is the information by which he has it set out what the will of each person
will be in the future, in which each individual will remain, and by which each
person may be either damned or crowned. Accordingly those whom God knows will
remain good, were often previously wicked, and those whom he knows will
continue wicked to the end, were sometimes before that good. For this reason
let the complaint cease, because: God is not a respecter of persons [Acts
10:34, Rom. 2:11]. For both Saul and Judas Iscariot had previously been good,
with Scripture saying of Saul: He was a good man and there was none better
in Israel [1 Sam. 9:2]; and of Judas Iscariot the apostle Peter says: Who
was allotted a share of this ministry in performing signs and wonders [Acts
1:17], that is the ministry of apostleship. And so how could he have been
allotted a share of the salvation mission, unless he had been good? For in the
part allotted to him God’s judgement was that he was worthy at that time when
he was chosen, just like those seventy‑two also, whom I mentioned earlier. It
is for this reason whence Judas also after committing a crime of total
wickedness, moved by penitence, ended his life with a noose.
γ-text: *For goodness cannot be utterly obliterated in any person;
for neither can nature herself be changed, but the will is changed, not however
in every respect because there remains in any nature what is witness to the
Creator.*
α-text: *And why is it surprising that
these men are said to have been good, when all nature is good and evil has no
substance, but only sin, which arises from the will? But the will is led astray
by error.*
Rom. 9:14: And so what will we say? Is God unjust? By no means.
For because he loves one and hates the other, surely, he says, God is unjust?
Clearly not, but rather he is just. For he knows what he might do and yet his
judgement is not bound to be revised. This is what it says in the prophet
Malachi, just as I said above: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated [Mal.
1:2–3]. He says this now from judgement, but previously he said from
foreknowledge that: The elder will serve the younger, just as also as a
result of foreknowledge he judged that Pharoah would be condemned, because he
knew that Pharoah would not reform; but he chose the apostle Paul who was
persecuting him, undoubtedly because he knew in advance that he would be
faithful in the future. And so, he anticipated Paul ahead of time, because Paul
was necessary, and he condemned Pharoah
ahead of his judgement that lay in the future, so that people would believe
that he was going to pass judgement.
Rom. 9:15: For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion”.
Therefore: I will have mercy, he says, on whom I will have mercy.
That is: I will have mercy on the one whom I knew in advance that I would show
mercy to, because I knew that he would convert and would remain with me. And
I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion, that is: I will show
compassion on the one whom I have known in advance would come back to me, after
his error, with an upright heart. In other words, he will give to the one to
whom it should be given, and he will not give to the one to whom it should not
be given, so that he calls whoever he knows obeys, but he does not call whoever
he knows in no way obeys. But to call is to goad someone to receive the faith.
Rom. 9:16: And so it is not of him
who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy. This is rightly
said, because the response to what is requested ought to lie not in the will of
the one asking but in the decision of the one giving. For whether or not it
should be given ought to be weighed in the judgement of the one doing the
giving. For Saul, in his sinning, when he asked for forgiveness did not receive
it, but on the other hand David, in his sinning and asking for himself to be
pardoned, received forgiveness. Assuredly from this the verdict must follow
concerning God when he gives and when he does not give, that he does not judge
unjustly: Who wants all men to be saved [1 Tim. 2:4] while justice is
maintained. For the inspector of hearts knows concerning the person making a
request whether he is making it with the sort of mind that means he merits to
receive his request. And although it is dangerous to try to understand God’s
judgement, yet for the sake of unbelievers, so that their minds might obtain
healing and so that they should not think that God’s judgement is unjust,
saying: He calls one and ignores the other [Luke 17:34] judging on this
basis that those who are to be condemned can be excused, let us prove this with
deeds rather than words. For where there are examples of deeds done no one dares
to complain or to offer any excuse.’
Bonner reproduces the Latin of the above on pp. 312-13:
‘Rom. 9:11–13: Nam cum nati nondum fuissent aut aliquid
egissent bonum uel malum, ut secundum electionem propositum Dei permaneret, non
ex operibus, sed ex uocatione dictum est, quia maior seruiet minori, sicut
scriptum est: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui [Mal. 1:2–3]. Istud in
Malachia habetur. Praescientiam Dei flagitat in his causis, quia non aliud
potest euenire, quam nouit Deus futurum. Sciendo enim quid unusquisque illorum
futurus esset dixit: “Hic erit dignus, qui erit minor, et qui erit maior,
indignus.” Vnum elegit praescientia et alterum spreuit. Et in illo quem elegit,
propositum Dei manet, quia aliud non potest euenire quam scit et proposuit in
illo, ut salute dignus sit; et in illo quem spernit, simili modo manet
propositum, quod proposuit de illo, quia indignus erit. Hoc quasi praescius, non
personarum acceptor [Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11], nam neminem damnat, antequam
peccet, et nullum coronat, antequam uincat. Hoc pertinet ad causam Iudaeorum, qui
sibi praerogatiuam defendunt, quod filii sint Abrahae …’.
[The author then says that Paul was consoling himself about the
fact that some Jews did not believe by reminding himself that God had foreseen
that some would not believe.]
‘Minuit ergo dolorem suum inueniens olim praedictum, quod non
essent omnes credituri, ut his solis doleat, qui per inuidiam minime
crediderunt. Possunt tamen credere, quod ex subiectis ostendit. Incredulis
tamen praedictis non ualde dolendum, quia non sunt praedestinati ad uitam;
praescientia enim Dei olim istos non saluandos decreuit. Quis enim plangat eum,
qui olim mortuus habetur? Sed subintrantibus gentibus, quae sine Deo prius
erant, et salutem quam illi perdiderunt, accipientibus exsuscitatur dolor; sed
iterum quia ipsi sibi perditionis causa sunt, sopitur. Praescius itaque Deus
malae illos uoluntatis futuros, non habuit illos in numero bonorum, quamuis
dicat Saluator illis septuaginta duobus discipulis, quos elegerat secunda
classe, qui ab illo post recesserunt: Nomina uestra scripta sunt in caelo [Luke
10:20]. Sed hoc propter iustitiam, quia hoc est iustum, ut unicuique pro merito
respondeatur; quia enim erant boni, electi sunt ad ministerium et erant scripta
nomina illorum in caelo propter iustitiam, sicut dixi; secundum praescientiam
uero in numero erant malorum. De iustitia enim Deus iudicat, non de
praescientia. Vnde et Moysi dixit: Si quis peccauerit ante me, deleam illum
de libro meo [Exod. 32:33], ut secundum iustitiam iudicis tunc uideatur
deleri, cum peccat, iuxta praescientiam uero numquam in libro uitae fuisse.
Hinc et apostolus Iohannes de huiusmodi ait: Ex nobis exierunt, sed non
fuerunt ex nobis; si enim fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum [1
John 2:19]. Non est personarum acceptio in praescientia Dei. Praescientia enim
Dei est, qua definitum habet, qualis uniuscuiusque futura uoluntas erit, in qua
mansurus est, per quam aut damnetur aut coronetur. Denique quos scit in bono
mansuros, frequenter ante sunt mali, et quos scit malos permansuros, aliquoties
prius sunt boni. Vnde cessat querela, quia: Deus personarum acceptor non est
[Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11]. Nam et Saul et Iudas [Scarioth] ante fuerunt boni
dicente Scriptura de Saule: Erat uir bonus et non erat melior illo in filiis
Istrahel [1 Sam. 9:2]; et de Iuda Scarioth dicit apostolus Petrus: Qui
sortitus est sortem ministerii huius [in signis et prodigiis faciendis]
[Acts 1:17], id est apostolatus. Igitur quomodo ministerium salutare
sortiretur, nisi esset bonus? In sorte enim Dei iudicium fuit dignum illum
fuisse tempore, quo electus est, sicut et illi septuaginta duo, quos supra
memoraui. Hinc est unde et Iudas post scelus mali totius admissum paenitentia
motus laqueo uitam finiuit.
γ-text: *Non enim potest penitus in aliquo omne bonum obliterari;
nec enim natura ipsa potest inmutari, sed uoluntas, non in omnibus tamen
causis, quia remanet in natura, quod testimonio sit Creatori.*
α-text: *Et quid mirum, quia dicuntur fuisse boni, cum omnis
natura bona sit et malum nulla substantia, sed sola praeuaricatio, quae oritur
de uoluntate? Voluntas autem trahitur de errore.*
Rom. 9:14: Quid ergo dicemus? Numquid iniquitas apud Deum?
Absit. Quia enim unum diligit et alterum odit, numquid, ait, iniquus Deus
est? Non plane, sed iustus. Scit enim quid faciat et nec retractandum est eius
iudicium. Hoc in Malachia habetur propheta, sicut supra dictum est: Iacob
dilexi, Esau autem odio habui [Mal. 1:2–3]. Hoc iam de iudicio dicit, nam
prius de praescientia ait quia maior seruiet minori, sicut et de
praescientia Faraonem damnandum censuit sciens non correcturum; apostolum uero
Paulum persequentem elegit, praescius utique, quod futurus esset fidelis. Hunc
ergo praeuenit ante tempus, quia necessarius erat, et Faraonem ante futurum
iudicium damnauit, ut crederetur iudicaturus.
Rom. 9:15: Moysi enim dicit: Miserebor cui misertus ero, et
misericordiam praestabo, cui misericordiam praestitero. Ergo miserebor,
inquit, eius cui misertus ero. Hoc est: illius miserebor, cui praescius
eram quod misericordiam daturus essem, sciens conuersurum illum et mansurum apud
me. Et misericordiam praestabo ei, cui misericordiam praestitero, id
est: misericordiam dabo, quem praescii post errorem recto corde regressurum ad
me. Hoc est dare illi, cui dandum est, neque non dare illi, cui dandum non est,
ut eum uocet, quem sciat obaudire, illum autem non uocet, quem sciat minime
obaudire. Vocare autem conpungere est ad recipiendam fidem.
Rom. 9:16: Igitur non uolentis neque currentis, sed miserentis
est Dei. Recte, quia non in uoluntate petentis, sed in dantis arbitrio debet
esse, quod poscitur. An enim dandum sit, dantis debet iudicio pensitari. Nam
Saul peccans, cum petisset ueniam, non accepit, at contra Dauid peccans et
ignosci sibi postulans ueniam consecutus est. Ex hoc utique dantis Dei et non
dantis iudicium sequendum est, quia non iniuste iudicat: Qui omnes saluos
uult [1 Tim. 2:4] manente iustitia. Inspector enim cordis scit petentem, an
hac mente poscat, ut mereatur accipere. Et quamuis periculosum sit iudicium Dei
discernere, tamen propter diffidentes, ut mens eorum medelam consequi possit,
ne putent iniustum iudicium Dei dicentes: Vnum uocat, alterum neglegit [Luke
17:34], sic arbitrantes excusari posse damnandos, rebus hoc potius probemus
quam uerbis. Vbi enim rerum gestarum exempla sunt, nemo audet queri nec aliquam
excusationem obtendere.’