Commentary on Romans 9:14-24

Text in red are my additions.

GOD IS NOT UNJUST IN  PREFERRING ONE TO ANOTHER
A Summary of Romans 9:14-24

  In this section the Apostle discusses the justice of God in giving His grace to one rather than to another, without regard for their merits. It has already been proved against the Jews that God was not unfaithful to His promises, because these were made not to the carnal, but to the spiritual posterity of Abraham. But since the Jews were God’s chosen people, favored with the Law and many special heavenly blessings, they might consider it unjust on the part of God to prefer the Gentiles to them. Forestalling this objection the Apostle proposes it himself, only to reject it as a blasphemy. If the Jews do not embrace Christianity, it is because they have not received God’s efficacious call; but in this there is no injustice with God, since Scripture proves that God gives His favors to whom He pleases, while He hardens others (verses 15-18). But if men are thus the instruments of God, how can God blame them (verse 19)? In reply the Apostle maintains that God has a right to do as He will with His creature (verses 20, 21). He then explains the designs of God, who, while patient with the wicked, has determined to show forth His anger as well as His goodness (verses 22-24).

If we do not understand all of God’s mysterious dealings with the human race the reason is: (a) because He is infinite and we are finite, and just because He is infinite there must be in all His actions and outward manifestations much of mystery which we can never fathom; (b) God has not and cannot make known to us in this life, when we must live and walk by faith, all the reasons and purposes of His actions.

Rom 9:14. What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid.

To the objection here raised Paul at present gives no other answer than a plain and vigorous rejection. There is no injustice (αδικια = adikia) in God, he says. God is free to give His favors to whom He will, and hence if He chooses to give the blessings of grace and justification to the Gentiles rather than to the Jews, who can accuse Him of injustice?

Rom 9:15. For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

St. Paul now appeals to the authority of God speaking to Moses, to prove that God is the free and independent dispenser of His gifts. The citation (Exodus 33:19) is according to the Septuagint. The Hebrew of this passage would be rendered by the present tense, and the first clause would be indicative of favor, the second of mercy or pity: “I show favor to whom I show favor, and I show mercy to whom I show mercy.” As God was here speaking to Moses, as contrasted with Pharaoh, it is more likely that Moses in this instance is to be considered as a private person, rather than in his capacity as lawgiver to whom God was revealing His plan (Lagrange). God, therefore, like a rich man dispensing his gifts, is under no obligation to give to anyone, or to one rather than to another; and if He freely chooses to bestow His riches on some and deny them to others, there is no injustice done whatever; God is simply manifesting His own will in bestowing or withholding His gifts, and His will is essentially and necessarily righteous. If we do not understand this, or find difficulty in God’s ways of acting, it is only because we are sinful finite creatures; and as such we should not expect to comprehend the actions of the infinite and allholy God. God, therefore, is perfectly free to call the Gentiles to the faith rather than the Jews, and to call some of the Jews and reject others. Cf. St. Thomas, h. 1.

Rom 9:16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

The conclusion to what has been said is now drawn. It, i.e., the showing of mercy, the election of man to the faith and to eternal life, in nowise depends on the dispositions or efforts of man, but on God who manifests His goodness.

Not of him that willeth, i.e., no internal strong desires, nor of him that runneth, i.e., no external strenuous efforts on man’s part can make any claim to justification, or to the election to eternal life. That which follows election and the call to the faith is not in question here; neither is there question in this verse of the relation between grace and free will, but only of God’s entire freedom to favor whom He chooses.

Rom 9:17. For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Having proved that God is perfectly free to show the goodness of His mercy to whom He will, St. Paul now goes on to indicate by a second example that God is not less free and just in refusing to call, and thereby reprobating others. Moses was an object of God’s mercy and favor, Pharaoh was a type of those who resist God and refuse to obey God’s laws.

The Scripture, i.e., God through the Scripture (Exodus 9:16), saith to Pharao. St. Paul cites the Scripture as the Word of God. The citation is according to the LXX, but is not literal. The LXX has “thou hast been preserved”; but St. Paul says, ( εξηγειρα = exegeira)  which is very similar to the Hebrew, (עמד =‛âmad pronounced aw-mad’) “I have raised thee up,” as actors are called to the stage of life to play a role in human history. The sense is practically the same in either reading. We cannot say, however, that God, in making use of Pharaoh as a means of manifesting His power and glorifying His name throughout the world, excited him to sin and moved him to evil. God’s primary intention in raising Pharaoh to the throne of Egypt was that the monarch might justly and rightly govern his people, and thus promote his own and their salvation; but this primary intention failing, God called into play His secondary object, which was to make of Pharaoh an instrument whereby to manifest the divine power and glorify the divine name.

In the case of Pharaoh, as in similar instances, God simply permitted man, a finite and defectible creature, to misuse his own free will by turning to evil his office, his power, his works and other things which were intended by God to lead their possessor to good. Pharaoh, as king, had his authority from God, and God permitted him freely to abuse it in oppressing and persecuting the Israelites. God, therefore, was not the cause of the wickedness of Pharaoh, but in His infinite wisdom, which knows how to draw good out of evil, He made use of the malice of the wicked king to set forth His own power and justice by at length visiting his impiety and cruelty with many and dire chastisements (Sales). Cf. Ex 14:14-15; Josh 2:9; Josh 9:9; 1 Sam 4:8, etc.

Rom 9:18. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth.
The conclusion which follows from verses 15-17 is that God is perfectly free, and therefore just, in giving His favors to one rather than another, in showing mercy to some and in hardening others. God does not, however, harden man’s heart directly, by making him obstinate in sin; but indirectly He does, by justly withholding His more abundant grace, thus permitting man to continue in sin and to offend ever more and more grievously. To all God gives grace sufficient for salvation, but many, abusing the graces they receive, become unworthy of that further efficacious grace without which final perseverance and the attainment of heaven are impossible.

St. Paul does not attempt to reconcile the action of God in hardening a sinner with man’s free will. That God has the power to harden man’s heart the Apostle here affirms, and this is done, not by moving man to sin, but by withholding grace from him. It is maintained in this verse only that God has the right to show mercy to whom He will and to harden whom He will, without saying that all are hardened to whom mercy is not shown, or that this hardening is lasting or merely for a time (Lagrange).

Rom 9:19. Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will?

From the foregoing doctrine one might object that there is no room for faultfinding on the part of God, if some are not converted, because no one resists His will. Those who freely obey His law are the objects of His love and mercy, while those who refuse obedience to Him fall under His justice; hence they who think they are resisting the divine will are only obeying it in another way: there is no complete resisting the will of God.

Who resisteth, etc., i.e., who has ever succeeded in resisting God’s will, since, if we do not obey it in one way, we do in another? The meaning is not: Who would be able to resist His will? (Cornely).

The dicis of the Vulgate should be dices. Both words can be translated as “say,” but dices is a bit more forceful, often having legal or disputative force, and, therefore, is more in keeping with argumentative, debate-like  of the presentation (see following comment on verse 20).


Rom 9:20. O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the things formed say to him that formed it: why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21. Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Who art thou that repliest (20), etc. The Apostle supposes there was something insolent in the above objection, as ανταποκρινομενος (antapokrinomenos = “that repliest against”) would imply. Has ignorant, miserable, sinful man any right to enter into a discussion with the all-wise Creator regarding the conditions of his creation and life?

St. Paul then asks in this and in the following verse two questions which are calculated to remind the objector of what he really is with regard to God. The comparison which follows in these questions is after the manner of a parable or illustration, and was often made use of in the Old Testament (Isa 29:16; Isa 45:8-10; lxiv. Isa 64:8; Jer 18:6; Wis 15:7, etc.), where God was compared to a potter, and man to a vessel of clay, most likely in view of the account of Gen 2:7. This manner of speech was, therefore, very familiar to the Jews, and had, in consequence, a special force for them.

The question of verse 21 is really an answer to that of verse 20: just as the clay has no right to object to the action of the potter, so neither has man any right to say to his Creator, “why have you made me thus?” And again, just as the potter has the right to make of the same lump some vessels for honorable, others for dishonorable uses, so has God the right and the liberty to show mercy to some men, and to use others for His own hidden purposes. There is no injustice done to man if God chooses not to use him for high and noble purposes, because man has no right to these things. Without doubt St. Paul is here indirectly treating of election to glory and of reprobation. His words have immediate reference to God’s call to, or rejection from, the faith; but they apply equally to election to glory or to reprobation. The principle is the same in either case.

There is nothing, however, in these verses to justify the fatalism of Calvin, who taught that God is the cause of evil as well as good, and that He makes some people good and others bad, in order to lead the former to glory and the latter to perdition. As said above, the Apostle is making use, at present, of an illustration only, and all points between the things compared must not, therefore, be insisted upon. Hence, from the passivity of the clay in the hands of the potter we can no more argue to the exclusion of human liberty, than we can exclude the existence of a rational soul in man, on the ground that these things are not in the clay. The object of the Apostle in employing the comparison is merely to show that man has no more reason to complain of rejection from grace, than the clay would have of its destination for dishonorable purposes. From man’s complete rejection from grace his rejection from glory would also follow; but the decree of positive reprobation from glory is always grounded on man’s demerits (MacEvilly).

Rom 9:22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,

After having energetically replied to the insolent objection of verse 19, St. Paul returns to the situation of verses 15-18, and sets forth certain reasons why God shows mercy to some and hardens others. If God has called the Gentiles and rejected the Jews, He is only manifesting His infinite mercy and justice, as He has a right to do; and St. Paul sees in the case of the Jews, as in that of Pharaoh, a historic incident which but serves God’s infinite designs.

What if (ει δε = ei de), i.e., according to Lagrange, “now, if.” No apodosis follows, the period is left incompleted. The required apodosis would be something like this: What should we say? What objection could we make?

Willing (θελων = thelon), i.e., although willing, or while willing, according to Cornely. This would give θελων (= thelon) a concessive meaning,—God could have wished to show His anger, but He has not. Such an explanation, however, seems contrary to Rom 1:18-3:20, where St. Paul shows that God has not only wished to show His anger, but has actually done so (Lagrange, Kuhl, etc.). Still, it can be argued that the wrath of God, which, to some extent has already been visited upon both Jews and Gentiles, is restrained and will be manifested in a special manner on all those who are eternally condemned for their personal sins.

And to make his power known, as He did in a measure, in saving His people in spite of Pharaoh, and in bearing mercifully with the Jews, whose treatment of Christ and the Apostles merited a speedy punishment.

Endured with much patience. Better, “Hath borne with much patience,” i.e., according to Cornely, God bore with vessels of wrath in order to give them time to do penance and be saved. Fr. Lagrange does not exclude this interpretation, but thinks the Apostle meant here simply to say that God bore with vessels of wrath in order to manifest His wrath and power towards some, who willfully harden themselves, and His goodness and mercy towards others, who make use of the graces offered them (verse 23).

Vessels of wrath, i.e., sinners, those who, like those who rejected the Gospel, resist the will of God and become deserving of vengeance and punishment.

Fitted for destruction, i.e., prepared and ready, by their own choice and actions, for the wrath that has been visited upon them in their lives, and for the eternal perdition they deserve hereafter. Who, therefore, can take issue with God, if He has rejected and reprobated the Jews for the sins they have freely chosen to commit? God’s long-suffering is salvation to those who wish to be converted (2 Pet 3:9, 15), but it is damnation aggravated to those who harden themselves in sin (Rickaby).

Rom 9:23. That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?

That he might, etc. In the great majority of MSS  ινα γνωριση (hina gnorise)  is preceded by και (kai, pronounced, kahee), which makes it especially clear that this verse follows upon the thought of the first part of verse 18. Not only has God manifested His wrath upon vessels of wrath, but He has also shown mercy to those whom He has withdrawn from sin and justified in preparation for eternal glory.

The riches of his glory, i.e., the riches of His goodness (Rom 2:4), by which sinners are led from evil ways to faith and justification, and finally to eternal glory in heaven.

On the vessels of mercy, i.e., on those who become objects of His grace and mercy.

Which he hath prepared, etc. God does not prepare the vessels of wrath for damnation. Of their own perversity they choose to abide in sin, and so God withdraws from them His special aid, and permits them to become hardened and to die in their sins. The vessels of mercy, on the contrary, God prepares for glory by calling them efficaciously to the faith, by sanctifying them, and by helping them to persevere to the end. Man corrupted by original sin needs only to be left to himself, to his own perverse will and tendencies, to be lost; but to be saved, he needs to be helped and disposed in a special manner by the grace of God.

Rom 9:24. Even us, whom also he hath called, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles.

This verse ought really to be joined to the preceding, according to sense. It proves that the intervention of God has actually commenced already, as stated in the verses above.

Even us, i.e., the vessels of mercy, St. Paul and the Roman Christians. Speaking of the called the Apostle puts the Jews in the first place to remind them of their prerogatives; but by including the Gentiles he shows the entire freedom of God’s choice, which has brought more Gentiles than Jews to Christianity.