Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Read Chapter 1
Ambrosiaster
AD 400
They were foolish and faithless and had no feelings either for God or for men. That is why they were heartless and ruthless. For someone who is cruel to his own family will be that much more cruel to others! Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.
Dissolute, rude in their manners, and behaviour. Some, from the Greek, understand breakers of their word; but this would be the same as without fidelity, which we find afterwards in the same verse. (Witham)
Christ himself mentions this as the cause of wickedness, saying: “Because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.” Paul says here that they were … traitors to nature. For most of us have a kind of family feeling to one another, which even the beasts share among themselves…. But these men became even more ferocious than the beasts. The disorder which resulted in the world by evil teachings he proves to us by these witnesses and clearly shows that in each case the malady came from the negligence of those who were disordered.
For this Christ Himself also pronounces to be the cause of wickedness, saying, When iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. Matthew 24:12. This too St. Paul here says, calling them covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful, and showing that they were traitors even to the gift of nature. For we have a sort of family feeling even by nature towards one another, which even beasts have got towards each other. For every beast, it says, loves his like, and every man his neighbor. Sirach 13:15 But these became more ferocious even than they. The disorder then which resulted to the world by evil doctrines, he proves to us by these witnesses, and clearly shows that the malady in either case came of the negligence of them that were disordered. He shows besides, what he did in the case of the doctrines, that they were here also deprived of all excuse; and so he says.
Having assumed here two objections, he in the first place removes them. For what reason have you to say, he means, that you know not the things which ought to be done? At best, even if you did not know, you are to blame in having left God who instructs you. But as it is by many arguments we have shown that you do know, and transgress willingly. But are you drawn by passion? Why then do you both coöperate therewith and praise it? For they not only do such things, he says, but have pleasure in them that do them. Having then put the more grievous and the unpardonable sin first, that he might have done with it (Or convict you of it, ἵ να ἑλῃ); (for he that praises the sin is far worse than even he that trespasses;) having then put this the first, he by this method grapples more powerfully with him in the sequel, speaking on this wise.
