Shall the Thing Formed Say to Him That Formed It? The Vessels of Mercy and of Wrath (Romans 9:20–22)

Rom. 9:20. Nay but, O man, who are you that reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?

Holy Chrysostom remarks that “the Apostle does not at once give a solution, but first stops the mouth of the objector. Checking his untimely curiosity and excessive questioning, he puts a bridle upon him and teaches him to know the difference between God and man, and also how incomprehensible and beyond our understanding is God’s providence, and how all must submit to God. And all this to this end: that, having convinced the listener thereof, having rebuked and humbled his will, to give his solution with greater ease and to make his words unquestionable to the listener. And he does not say that it is impossible to resolve this. But what then? He calls the very question a transgression. For what is said by God ought to be obeyed, not questioned, even though we know not the reason thereof. Therefore the Apostle says: ‘O man, who are you that reply against God?’ Do you see how he destroys and casts down presumption? ‘Who are you?’ Are you partner with God in rulership? Do you sit as judge with God? In comparison with God you can not even be named as something, nor be said to be this or that; on the contrary, you are nothing. And to ask ‘Who are you?’—is more debasing than to say: you are nothing. Yea, the Apostle expresses even greater indignation by his question. He did not say: ‘O man, who are you replying to God?’—but ‘replying against God,’ that is, you who dispute, resist. To say: this ought to have been done thus or thus—means to dispute. See you how the Apostle terrified, struck, and caused to tremble, rather than to question and seek? This is the mark of a skilled teacher: not to follow in all things the desire of disciples, but to lead them according to his own will; first to root out the thorns, then to sow the seed; not to give answer at once to every question.”

“Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?” By the thing formed, πλάσμα, is understood any human work, especially sculpture and moulding. There is a similar passage in the prophet Isaiah Isa. 29:16; 45:9. As applied to God, it is used by way of illustration, as an example. The comparison begun here continues also in the following verse, which expresses the same thought.

Rom. 9:21. Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour?

“By this the Apostle does not destroy free will, but shows how one ought to obey God. When it falls to your lot (an impulse will come to you thereat), imagine to yourself that you are nothing but clay. And you are not only not to contradict, not to ask questions, but even not to speak, not to think, but to be like inanimate clay, which obeys the hands of the potter and is used for whatever he wishes. For this very reason the Apostle takes such an example, not as a model for life, but as a lesson in complete and silent obedience. Such a rule must be observed everywhere—to accept examples not in their exact meaning, but to choose from them what is needed, for which they are brought, leaving all else aside. So here one must understand the words: clay, potter, vessel. And when the Apostle adds and says: ‘Has not the potter power over the clay’ and so forth—do not conclude from this that he depicts therein the reasons of creation or the necessity of determination; on the contrary, he expresses power and diversity in arrangements. But if one take his words in no other sense, there will be many absurd consequences. For if the discourse here be about determination, it will follow that God is the Creator of both good and evil, and man is altogether innocent in both. Then it will also appear that Paul, who extols free will everywhere, contradicts himself. Therefore the Apostle wishes to attain here no other end than to persuade the listener to submit to God in all things and to demand account of Him in nothing. As the potter, he reasons, from the same lump makes what he wishes, and none contradicts him: so you too ask not and inquire not of God why men, though they be of one and the same race, He punishes some and rewards others; on the contrary, revere Him and imitate clay. As it obeys the hands of the potter, so do you obey the ordinance of the Ruler of the universe. He acts not without purpose and not by chance, though you comprehendest not the mysteries of wisdom. You allowest the potter from the same lump to prepare different works and blamest him not for this, yet of God you demandest account in the distribution of punishments and honours, and do not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is unworthy. But since in the same composition there is the same substance, you presume that the products are also the same. What groundlessness! It depends not on the potter that from the same lump one thing comes out for honourable, and another for base use; on the contrary, on the use (voluntary) by those who use the vessel. So here also the matter depends on free will. Moreover, as I have noted, the example must be taken in this one respect, that man is bound not to contradict God, but to commit all to His inscrutable wisdom. The example should be more comprehensive than the subject for whose explanation it is adduced, so that it might have greater effect on the listeners. If it were not more comprehensive and did not contain many concepts, it could not so move and confound the objector as is necessary” (Holy Chrysostom).

Holy Chrysostom, as is evident, turned all his attention to repel the thought which first presents itself to the mind upon reading these words of the Apostle, namely—if all is from God, then there is no freedom and we are not guilty. And he refutes it in the abstract, not considering it in relation to the course of the discourse, as do the words themselves. He says that the Apostle by this example teaches us only perfect and silent submission to God’s ordinances. As for God’s ordinances themselves, it is well known that they are made in complete accord both with God’s righteousness, mercy, and wisdom, and with the worthiness and unworthiness of men, or with the use they make of their free will. Since our lack of foresight does not permit us to see either of these as we should, and they certainly exist in all God’s works, it is unwise to object, to be troubled, and to draw absurd conclusions from this, such as: “Why does he yet find fault?” The most reasonable thing, when such perplexities arise, is to stir up faith in God’s righteousness and loving care, and to submit humbly and silently to His ordinances, driving away every thought that anything unrighteous or unmerciful issues from God, and finding complete rest in devotion to Him.

To this also, that is, to the refutation of the thought that by these words free will is abolished, directs his discourse Blessed Theodoret, only by another path. He takes as proof of freedom the very act of objection. If, he says, you objected, it means you are free. If you were not free, you would not object, but in silence submit, as clay to the potter. He says: “If you were not free and did not choose by your own will what you should do, but by necessity did slavishly follow God’s will; then you would be silent, like inanimate creatures, accepting what takes place according to God’s dispensation. But since you are honoured with reason, you speak and do what is pleasing to you, and love not what comes to pass, but seek reasons for God’s dispensations. Look at the clay in the potter’s hands; it, having no rational discernment, contradicts not the worker, but, if it be destined for making a vessel of dishonour, in silence accepts what is done to it. But you resist and dispute. Therefore you are not bound by natural necessity, you transgress not the law against your will, but voluntarily love wickedness, and by your will take upon yourself the labours of virtue. Therefore just and righteous is the judgment of God over all, lawfully does He punish those who sin, as deliberately daring to commit evil. There is also justice in His loving-kindness; for, taking occasion from us, God shows mercy.” A similar thought is expressed also by Oecumenius.

Rom. 9:22-23. What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared to glory

This discourse is abridged: both of its parts lack the second half of the expression; the preceding, beginning with “what if,” is there, but the following, which should answer to “what if” by “then,” is not; yet in the second verse, or part, even the preceding is incomplete: for it is said only: “that he might make known the riches” and so forth; but what exactly God did so as to make known these riches is not apparent. Hence the first necessity is to complete both. Thus, it seems, this can be done: the following, which should answer to “what if” by “then,” must be borrowed from the preceding example about the relation of the potter to the clay and of the clay to the potter. Of the potter it is said: “Has not the potter power?”—and of the clay: “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it?” Since verses 22 and 23 apply this example to the subject matter; it will be entirely proper to complete what is lacking in them from this example and—for both parts take some one of the phrases adduced, or for one part one, and for the other part another, which may be left to each one’s choice. It will be thus: in the example it is said: Does not the potter have power from the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour? And the vessels do not ask him why he made them thus. In the application it should follow: if now God appoints some, the unworthy, to dishonour—to destruction, and others, the worthy, to glory, does not He then, in your view, have power to do this? Or—do those appointed have power to ask: why thus? Thus will be completed what is lacking in the following for both parts. How to complete what is lacking in the second part of the preceding—what exactly God did, to make known the riches of His glory? For this one must, as Oecumenius does, relate the verb: “endured” to both the first and second part of the preceding thus: in the first: “endured in destruction,” in the second: “endured in glory.” All the remaining words explain how it came about that some are appointed to one and others to another, and why God did the one or the other.

The word: “endured,” ἤνεγκεν, does not mean: to bear in the sense of to endure—but: to carry, as things are carried from place to place, to carry, to bear, to bring, to assign, to determine, to ordain. God assigned some, classified some, determined some to destruction, and others assigned, classified, determined to glory.

How it came about that the first were assigned to destruction is expressed by the words: “the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, endured with much longsuffering”; namely: God assigned to destruction the vessels of wrath, which became perfected or formed during the time of much long-suffering toward them, or on account of much long-suffering, or through the fact that they made poor use of much of God’s long-suffering. “Fitted,” κατηρτισμένα, from καταρτίζω—to fit one thing to another, to order, to give form, to form. It will be: κατηρτισμένα σκεύη—vessels of wrath formed, which became formed, adjusted, fitted, into such vessels. “With much longsuffering”—must be referred to: “fitted,” κατηρτισμένα—as a circumstance of time or of the manner by which it came about that they were so formed as σκεύη.

Holy Chrysostom says: “Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who kindled God’s wrath. Having experienced God’s long-suffering many times, he became not better, but remained incorrigible. As God left nothing undone serving to his correction, so he left nothing undone serving to his destruction and to making himself inexcusable. Yet God, foreseeing even this, showed much long-suffering, for He wished to bring him to repentance. And if He had not wished this, He would not have endured so long.”

By Pharaoh also is meant all generally who do not heed God’s commandments, who despise His will and make nothing of His ordinances. All such separate themselves by their own action into the category of the perishing, and God confirms upon them this lot, because it cannot be otherwise or they are worthy of nothing else. There passes through the Apostle’s discourse here the thought of separation from the seed of Israel of those who are not Israel. First He showed examples of visible separation in Ishmael and Esau; but afterwards there was no such visible separation, as though all descendants of Israel were Israel. But this was only in appearance: the unworthy separated themselves from this rank by their own action, and God knew them, though He did not declare it. But now through the Gospel this has come to light. Those formed into vessels of wrath are assigned to destruction by remaining outside the sphere of faith, are winnowed from the company of the saved, as chaff from wheat on God’s threshing-floor. Yet the Apostle has in view not Jews alone, but mankind in general. In the Jews this is more clearly seen.

How did it come about that God assigned others to glory? Thus, that God prepared them for vessels of mercy. This too was during the time of long-suffering. Those formed themselves into vessels of wrath, but these God prepared for vessels of mercy. “Is there unrighteousness with God?” No; God’s intention was also to prepare these through His long-suffering for vessels of mercy, but they would not have it, and, instead of acting according to God’s indication and dispensation, acted on their own, and thereby formed themselves into self-willed men, foes of God, for which they are righteously deprived of mercy and assigned to the rank of vessels of wrath. On the contrary, these with complete submission followed God’s ordinances and commandments and thus formed themselves into God-dedicated servants of God, having no other law but the will of God. Being thus disposed, they were plainly ready vessels of God’s mercy, by reason of such formation of themselves according to God’s will. It is said: “God prepared them for vessels of mercy,” as though apart from their will. It is said thus because all guidance toward such formation came from God, and those who willingly submitted to this guidance were strengthened by God—not as though their will did not participate therein. Since without both together they could not form themselves into vessels of mercy, this is attributed to God wholly, yet not excluding the participation of their will.

Holy Chrysostom says: “As Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath through his own lawlessness, so the saved became vessels of mercy through their godliness. If the greater part belongs to God, yet we also contribute something small from ourselves. He did not say: vessels of merit or vessels of boldness, but: ‘vessels of mercy,’—thereby giving to understand that all belongs to God. Also, when he says: ‘not of him that wills, nor of him that runs,’ he does not thereby destroy freedom, but shows that not all belongs to man, but on the contrary, he needs grace from above. Although one must both will and strive; yet one must not rest upon one’s own striving, but on God’s loving-kindness, as the Apostle also said of himself elsewhere: ‘not I, but the grace of God which is with me’ 1 Cor. 15:10. Why then do some become vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? By their own will. But God, by His infinite goodness, shows mercy to both. For He had mercy not only on the saved, but also on Pharaoh, as much as He could. And both the saved and Pharaoh enjoyed the same long-suffering. And if Pharaoh was not saved, it was entirely by his own will. On God’s part, Pharaoh lacked nothing before the saved.”

Why did God thus act? So that on the vessels of wrath He might “show his wrath, and make his power known, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.” The first is clearly drawn from the experience shown upon Pharaoh, to whom it was said: “For this very purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you.” But God acts thus also in regard to all who are impious and do not obey God. God is long-suffering with them, but they interpret this long-suffering either as weakness, or as indulgence and faint-heartedness. Wherefore God does not endure everything, but often punishes such impious and stubborn men, so as to show both His power and His wrath, as this was clearly manifested upon Pharaoh. Such is the general law of God’s providence over men, that He endures all things, and if He punishes, it is only so that men should not altogether forget that there is God, who is not so weak as to be unable to punish extraordinarily, nor faint-hearted as to shrink from it. When the time of His long-suffering shall end and when righteous punishment shall begin and God’s wrath shall appear in power, no one can determine. Wherefore everyone should keep himself on guard and not be lulled to sleep by long-suffering, but rather, waiting each moment for wrath, and believing that it will surely come, should hasten to repent, so as either to turn away wrath from himself, or if he fall under it together with others, to fall not to his destruction, but to final cleansing. To keep men in these saving thoughts, for this very reason God sometimes shows His wrath and power in punishing sinners, and not at all to make a final reckoning with them. The present time is not a time of such reckoning, but only of preparation for it.

In contrast to these, God shows “the riches of his glory” upon those obedient to Him. “By glory the Apostle meant the loving-kindness of God, giving to understand that it constitutes the glory of God chiefly and that God cares for this more than for anything else” (Holy Chrysostom). He did not simply say: shows glory or loving-kindness, but shows the riches of glory or loving-kindness, because God’s mercy always appears abundantly, beyond the expectation both of those who receive mercy and of those who behold it from afar. Perhaps mercy is called glory because it restores the glory of the pious and God-fearing, and through that the very godliness and fear of God. Commonly the impious debase the godly and appropriate all glory and honour to themselves and seize them. But when God subjects them to His wrath and shows mercy to the godly, then those are put to shame, and these are glorified, and namely by God’s glorifying. The glory of God shines forth upon them. And God does this not to show final retribution to His obedient servants, but so that they should not fall into despair upon encountering contempt, oppression, and persecution, but, being assured that God’s mercy always covers them and is always ready to be shown upon them, should be of good courage and bear all things patiently with joy, knowing that all this happens to them not for ill, but for good to themselves.

Such are the general thoughts suggested by the Apostle’s words, but they must be applied to the course of the Apostle’s discourse. He is explaining how it came about that not all Jews were called to share in the blessings of Christ the Lord, though He was promised specifically to them, and that in place of the rejected Jews, the Gentiles were called. It might appear that the promise had failed. Against this he says: “the promise has not made none effect.” For it was shown from the beginning that not all fleshly children are children of the promise. Thus Ishmael was separated from this rank, thus Esau was separated. What then is strange that now also part of the Jews appears to be separated from the inheritance?! This is according to God’s order of providence toward us. Delving more and more deeply into why some are separated and others remain heirs, the Apostle, though he stated that whom “he will” God has mercy, and whom “he will” He does not have mercy, yet gave to understand that He does both not without discernment, but has mercy on the worthy and obedient to Him, and does not have mercy on the unworthy and disobedient to Him—which he showed with particular clarity upon Pharaoh, who was subjected to plagues and death for his stubbornness before God, in open resistance to Him. But since this worthiness of the pitied and unworthiness of the unpitied are not always (indeed, accurately never) visible to us, while at the same time the inquisitiveness of the mind regarding God’s judgments is not restrained by this, and those troubled by this perplexity cease not to disturb the heart, often even the godly: then, on the one hand to restrain inquisitiveness, and on the other to calm the disturbed godliness, the Apostle brings all to devotion to God’s will, to the conviction that all that issues from God is good and right, as the Lord God Himself is good and right. And to present this more tangibly, he takes as an example the potter, who from the same clay fashions vessels to honour and not to honour, while the vessels are silent and do not ask: why did you make one thus and another otherwise? He speaks as it were: as these vessels are silent, so be you silent before God’s ordinances, seeing how He deprives some of mercy, but on others abundantly pours it out, believing that both is done in accord with God’s righteousness. This mercy, in the course of the discourse, is inclusion in the inheritance of blessings promised to the fathers in the Saviour, while not having mercy is deprivation of this inheritance; by the example of vessels, inclusion in the inheritance is selection for vessels of mercy, and deprivation of the inheritance is assignment to vessels of wrath. The conclusion from this will be thus: seeing how God selected some for vessels of mercy, as heirs of the spiritual promises in the Deliverer, while separating others from this inheritance and thereby showing them as vessels of His wrath, be not troubled and do not admit the thought that there is any unrighteousness here or that the promise has failed; on the contrary, believe that God is good and right in all His works, and find rest in devotion to His wise and inscrutable to us determinations and decisions.

From this it is clear that the vessels of wrath here with the Apostle are those who do not believe in the Lord, and the vessels of mercy are the believers. The assignment or classification of the former to destruction is their being left outside the sphere of faith, while the assignment or determination of the latter to glory is their acceptance into the fold of faith with all its blessings. That the former is a work of wrath was said at the beginning by the Forerunner of the Lord: already the axe is laid to the root of the trees, already the shovel “in hand” Matt. 3:10, 12. But this is the beginning of wrath; its final work will be at the last judgment. That believing in the Lord is glorious—this has been witnessed and is always witnessed by the inward spiritual glory of believers through the grace of the Holy Spirit; the final glorification of them follows beyond the grave, and will especially follow after the universal judgment. And the present spiritual glorification is already the riches of God’s glory; but how rich it will be in the future, neither thought can embrace nor word can express.

By this the thought aroused at the beginning about the failure of the promise is completely set aside. But the Apostle does not stop at this, but continues his reasoning further, so as to point out the true cause of the lot of both, namely, the faith of some and the unbelief of others (verse 30 and following). But first he dwells a little longer on the example of the potter.