Saturday, April 22, 2023

Translation of the γ-text of Ambrosiaster's Commentary on the Pauline Epistles on Romans 9:11-16

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.’