Romans 9:11Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

They all worshiped the calf, yet some were shown mercy and others were not. "I will have mercy," He says, "on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom 9:15).

The same can be seen in those who are punished. What can be said about Pharaoh? Why was he punished and subjected to such great punishment?

Because he was hard and disobedient. But was he alone such a man, and no one else?

Why, then, was he punished so severely? And why, in relation to the Jews, did God not speak about the whole people?

Why did He not deem all worthy of the same honor? It is said: "Though they be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved" (Isa 10:22).

And why only a remnant? Do you see how many perplexities the matter under consideration raises?

And this is entirely natural. Whenever an opponent can be brought into difficulty, do not immediately offer the solution.

For if he himself is shown to be at fault in his ignorance, why should you expose yourself to needless danger?

Why do you make him more insolent by taking everything upon yourself? Tell me, Jew, on what ground do you trouble us with questions about the calling of the Gentiles?

You are in such great difficulties yourself and cannot solve even one of them. Yet I can certainly point out the true reason why the Gentiles were justified.

I can also show why you Jews were deprived of the promises. What, then, is this reason?

It is that they were justified by faith, while you wished to be justified by the works of the Law. Through such stubbornness you lost everything.

"For, being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God" (Rom 10:3).

Briefly stated, in these words the blessed Apostle gives a general solution to the question. For greater clarity, however, we shall examine each word in detail.

We must keep in mind that blessed Paul's desire, through all that has been said, was to teach that God alone knows the worthy, and no man does.

Though men think they know well, they constantly err in their judgment. But He who knows the secrets already clearly knows who is worthy of crowns and who of punishment and torment.

Therefore He exposed and punished many who, in men's opinion, were good. He crowned many who were considered wicked, and testified that they were not such.

He pronounces judgment not according to the report of servants, but according to His own strict and impartial judgment.

He does not wait for the completion of the deed in order to judge one bad and another not.

Still, lest we again say something unclear, let us turn to the Apostle's words. "And not only so, but Rebecca also, having conceived by one man" (Rom 9:10).

Although I could, the Apostle reasons, point also to the children of Keturah, I do not speak of this.

In order to win the victory completely, I bring forward as an example those born from one father and one mother.

Both were born from Rebecca and Isaac, the lawful son of a blameless father who was preferred to all.

To him it was said: "In Isaac shall your seed be called" (Gen 21:12), and he became the father of us all.

If he is our father, then those who came from him should also have been fathers. But this was not so.

You see that this happened not only with Abraham, but also with his son. Everywhere faith and virtue shine forth, and they signify true kinship.

From this we learn that Abraham's children are called his children not only by birth, but because they are worthy of the virtue of him who begot them.

If they were called so by birth alone, Esau would have had to enjoy equal rights with Jacob.

For Esau too came from a deadened womb, and his mother was barren. But birth alone was not required; character also was required.

This is not a matter of chance, but serves for the edification of our life.

The Apostle does not say that, since one was good and the other wicked, the first was therefore preferred.

Otherwise someone would immediately object to him: How then? Who are better, those from the Gentiles or those from the circumcision?

Although the Apostle could have appealed here to actual experience, he does not do this. It seemed very harsh to him.

Instead he entrusted everything to the divine mind, against which no one can dare to fight, except perhaps one utterly senseless.

"For before they were born," he says, "or had done anything good or evil, it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger."

He proves that there is no profit in nobility according to the flesh. What is needed is virtue of soul, which God knows even before deeds.

"For before they were born, or had done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger."

To choose from birth itself belongs to foreknowledge. He says this so that the election of God, accomplished according to will and foreknowledge, might be made manifest.

From the first day, God knew and foretold both the good man and the man who was not good.

Therefore do not tell me, the Apostle continues, that you have read the Law and the Prophets, and have served for so long.

He who knows and tests the soul also knows who is worthy of salvation. Therefore yield to what is incomprehensible in election.

He alone rightly knows whom to crown. How many there were who, judging by the outward testimony of deeds, seemed better than Matthew.

But He who knows secrets and knows how to test the capacities of the mind noticed the pearl lying in the mud.

Passing by the others and marveling at Matthew's beauty, He chose him. Adding His own grace to the nobility of Matthew's will, He showed him worthy.

Whoever can judge these temporal arts, or all other works, does not choose what the unskilled approve.

He chooses what he himself knows perfectly. He often rejects what the ignorant approve, and approves what they reject.

Those who train horses act this way in selecting them. So also does an appraiser of precious stones, and those skilled in the other arts.

How much more will God, the Lover of mankind and infinite Wisdom, who alone clearly knows all things, not follow human opinions.

Rather, He will pronounce judgment about everything according to His own wisdom, which is wholly exact and without stumbling.

Thus He chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot, while He delivered the high priests, elders, and rulers to dishonor and rejected them.

Everyone knows that the same thing happened with the martyrs. Many from among those utterly rejected by men were crowned during the persecutions.

Conversely, some who were considered great among the people stumbled and fell.

Therefore do not demand an account from the Creator, and do not ask why one was crowned and another punished.

He knows how to do all things justly. For this reason He said: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

You learned from the outcomes that this was just, but God clearly knew it before the end.

He requires not only the manifestation of deeds, but also a noble will and a prudent thought.

Such a man, even if he should sin at some time under the influence of some circumstance, will soon correct himself.

Even if he should happen to persist in vice, he will not be despised, but the all-knowing God will soon remember him.

Likewise, a corrupt man, even if he does something apparently good, will perish, because he does it with an evil disposition.

Thus David, after committing murder and adultery, soon wiped away his crimes, because he had been carried away by circumstances.

He did not act from attachment to vice. But the Pharisee, who had done nothing of the kind and even boasted of good deeds, lost everything through an evil will.

But let no one say that God chose works. Otherwise, why does the Apostle say that election is not from works? He says this so it may be understood that good works come from love, and love abides in us by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle himself also says: "The love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit Who was given to us" (Rom 5:5). Therefore no one should glory in his works as though they were truly his own.

A man does them by the gift of God, when love itself produces good in him. What, then, did God choose? If He gives the Holy Spirit to whom He wills, through Whom love does good, how did He choose the one to whom He would give Him?

If He does not choose according to merits, then this is not election, for each person is equal before merit, and among those who are completely equal there is no possibility of choice. Yet since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not choose the works which He Himself supplies.

He gives the Holy Spirit so that through love we may be able to perform good works. God chooses faith. For if a man does not believe in Him and does not remain in the desire to receive, he will not receive the gift of God, that is, the Holy Spirit.

Through Him, in love that has been changed, he will be able to do good. Thus God did not choose in foreknowledge someone's works, which He Himself would later arrange. In foreknowledge He chose faith.

He chose the one whom He knew beforehand would believe God, and to him He gave the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good he might acquire eternal life. Faith is our work. Good works belong to Him Who gives the Holy Spirit to those who believe in Him.

This example was used against certain Jews who, after believing in Christ, boasted of works done before receiving grace. They said that they had merited the grace of the Gospel by their former works, although only those who have received grace can do good.

Grace is such that first the call comes to the sinner when he has no merits at all, and he goes straight to judgment. But if he follows God's call by his free will, he will also merit the Holy Spirit, through Whom he can do good.

Remaining in the Spirit, and this lies wholly in free will, such a person will also merit eternal life, which is subject to no corruption.

There is no believer who has not been called. God calls by His mercy, not as a reward for the merits of faith, because the merits of faith follow His call and do not precede it.

If God's mercy did not precede the call, no one could believe, thereby begin his justification, and receive the ability to do good. Therefore mercy precedes every merit. Thus Christ also died for sinners.

The younger brother, Jacob, received the promise not because of any merits of his own, so that the elder, Esau, might serve him.

We know that children not yet born have done nothing either good or evil, and they have no merits from any previous life, which no one could have had. They come into the sorrows of this life, and their fleshly birth from Adam binds them at birth to original death.

They are not freed from the punishment of eternal death. This just condemnation hangs over all, unless they are regenerated in Christ through grace.

Before they have appeared in deed, the first is loved and the second is hated.

Or again, Isaac is understood as an image of God. He has two sons, the written law and the spiritual law. One is hairy and rough, the other smooth.

For the Law contains an innumerable multitude of prescriptions. It is hated because, in Isaiah’s words, “My soul hates your feasts and your Sabbaths”; Is 1:13-14.

The other is loved because it is smooth. The Gospel is smooth and concise, for it requires only sincere faith and a good conscience toward one’s neighbor.

Or again, according to the meaning of the names: hateful before God is everyone who despises piety and is negligent in it. For this is how the name “Esau” is interpreted.

Beloved is everyone who trips up evil, as the name “Jacob” is interpreted.

Such an act of God's mercy is now shown in the preference of the Gentiles over the Jews in the call to the kingdom of the Messiah. Neither a person's descent from one or another people, nor his own struggles, nor his desire for salvation gives him a right to this call.

It is not the work of the man who wills or of the man who runs, but of God Who has mercy. Precisely, God has mercy on whom He has mercy and shows compassion on whom He shows compassion.

But does this not mean that God is unjust if He has mercy on some and rejects others, or, as is said of Pharaoh, hardens them? After all, no one can resist His will. By no means.

The point is that man does not have, and cannot have, such works or merits, or so many of them, by virtue of which God would, so to speak, be obliged to have mercy on him. If He has mercy on some, this is the work of His mercy.

On the other hand, God's hardening of people is only the action of God's justice. If, for example, it is said of Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, that I might show My power in you" (Rom 9:17; Ex 9:16), this does not mean that God transformed a meek Pharaoh into a cruel one and compelled him to cruel acts.

The guilt for hardening lies not in God, but in man himself. God only does not give him His grace, and He leaves man to his own will. Therefore, as He has mercy according to His goodness, so He hardens according to His justice.

Yet neither is God's mercy imposed against man's desire, nor does God's justice bind his freedom. There, man's salvation is accomplished by God's mercy, and man only gives, so to speak, free consent that God save him.

Here, man perishes by his own guilt and will, and God only permits it, giving, so to speak, consent that he perish. Therefore in both cases the chief cause of man's lot is his own freedom.

Thus those act quite unjustly who think that the lot of all people depends only on God's will, on His arbitrariness, and who say boldly: "Why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?"

Not understanding the mysteries of God's wise and righteous actions, they judge God according to man. In His actions and judgments they see the same arbitrariness and the same fallibility that they observe in the actions and judgments of men.

At least they would like God to give them an account of His actions and disclose why in certain cases He acts in one way or another. They forget that the righteous and all-good God does not act contrary to His righteousness and goodness.

They also forget that even if He wished to reveal the mysteries of His will, man could not penetrate the depths of His wisdom. Therefore it is most natural for man to humble himself before the unsearchable judgments of God.

To humble still more the proud inquisitiveness of the questioners, the Apostle brings forward the example of clay, which does not ask the potter about his actions with it.

"Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me thus?' Or does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

At first glance this example seems offensive to man's moral feeling. They ask: is man really soulless clay, with which God acts as arbitrarily as potters do with their vessels? Where then is his freedom? Where is God's just relation to His creature?

But St. John Chrysostom, revealing the true meaning of the Apostle's example, says "that it is cited not as a pattern of life, but in order to persuade the hearer to submit to God in everything and to demand no accounting from Him in anything.

As the potter, he reasons, makes from one and the same lump whatever he wishes, and no one contradicts him, so you also should not ask and inquire of God why, although people are of one and the same race, He punishes some and rewards others.

On the contrary, stand in reverence before Him and imitate the clay. As it is submissive to the potter's hands, so you should submit to the decree of the Ruler of the universe. He acts neither without intention nor by chance, though you do not grasp the mysteries of wisdom" (Homily 16 on Romans 9:2).

Knowing that God is righteous and merciful, man may be sure that God, acting according to His will, does not violate man's freedom or his dignity.

Therefore, although the Apostle says that God has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills (18), in essence God has mercy on whom it is fitting to have mercy, and hardens the one who hardens himself.

The force of the Apostle's proof is concentrated in this: the vessels of wrath had themselves already been prepared for destruction, while the vessels of mercy God prepared beforehand for glory.

Applying the whole treatise to the calling to Christ not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles, the Apostle sees that in this calling, as in the leading of the Israelites out of Egypt, God acts in this way.

Those who were not His people, the Gentiles, He calls His own and calls sons of God. From the numerous Israel He saves only a remnant. With the rest of Israel He acts strictly, but justly.

Thus, if by His mercy He had not left from it a seed, all Israel would have perished like Sodom and Gomorrah. The Apostle examines this point more closely in the following chapter.

It is even despite the fact that “from them, according to the flesh, is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen”; Rom 9:5.

Then the Apostle makes this observation: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are of Israel are Israel; nor are all Abraham’s children because they are his seed.”

That is, “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed,” the true seed of Abraham; Rom 9:6-8.

By the power of the promise only one son of Sarah was born; Rom 9:9. Therefore Abraham’s other children, for example those by Hagar and Keturah, were only his children according to the flesh. Concerning them God promised absolutely nothing.

From this it follows, although the Apostle does not state it literally, that the Jews, though descended from Abraham, still may not be counted in God’s judgment as true descendants of Abraham, the forefather of the Jews.

The Apostle explains this vividly by the example of Rebecca’s sons. Although both were born from her by one father, Isaac, and were even conceived at the same time; Rom 9:10.

God chose only one of them, and indeed the younger, even before their birth. The Apostle adds: “that God’s purpose according to election might stand, not from works, but from Him who calls” to one destiny or another.

So also it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”; Rom 9:11-13; cf. Mal 1:2.

Then, as though imbued with the strict and sharp spirit of Old Testament speech, he expresses the doctrine of predestination itself in a strict and sharp form: whom God wills, He has mercy on, and whom He wills, He hardens.

But from the examples cited we see that God does not love those who are unworthy of this, but those who were righteous. Likewise, God did not refrain from showing His special love to those who were meek and obedient, but to those who were disobedient and even cruel, as, for example, Pharaoh.

Pharaoh's cruelty was turned into punishment for him, in fulfillment of Scripture's word: "By the things wherein a man sins, by these he is tormented."

The chief force of the Apostle's thought is that both the calling to salvation and rejection depend on God, Who calls and has mercy, or rejects and punishes, and Who says: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy," and so forth.

According to His Grace Bishop Theophan, "St. Paul introduced this saying so that those perplexed over why not all the Jews entered into possession of the blessings of the promised Deliverer would frame this perplexity not according to some external details that catch the eye, but from the idea of God as all-righteous and all-good."

Yet together with this, both in the examples and in the whole course of the discourse, another important thought is suggested: God has mercy on the worthy and rejects or punishes the unworthy. This second thought is not set forth as strongly as the first.

The holy fathers and other interpreters attend equally to both thoughts, so that no one may exaggerate the first and diminish the second.

St. John Chrysostom, for example, says: "The chief intention of blessed Paul in all that he said was to teach that God alone knows the worthy. To Him Who knows the secrets of the heart, it is perfectly known who is worthy of crowns and who of punishment and torment.

He does not wait for the completion of the deed in order to recognize one as worthy and another as not. I bring the example of those born from one father and mother. Both were born from Rebecca and Isaac, the lawful son of Abraham, who was approved by God Himself and became the father of those who would inherit the promises.

If he is father, then those who came from him should also be fathers. But this was not so, for Esau was excluded from this rank. From this we see that Abraham's children are called his own children not only by birth, but because they are worthy of the virtues of their parent.

If they were called such by birth alone, Esau and Jacob would have had to enjoy equal rights. On the contrary, not only such a birth was required, but also morals. The Apostle, however, does not say that one was good and the other wicked, and therefore the first was preferred.

He presents divine foreknowledge as the only cause, against which only one utterly senseless would dare argue. Do not demand an accounting from the Creator. Do not ask: why is one crowned and another punished? He knows how to observe justice in everything.

Therefore He said: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,' that is, rejected. You know from the outcome that this is just, but God knew it before the fulfillment."

Explaining the meaning of the following words, Oecumenius writes: "If there is no unrighteousness with God, and yet, when all worshiped the calf, God says. 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,' then surely it is because He secretly entered the hearts of men with His eyes and saw who was worthy of mercy and who was unworthy" (Isa 32).

In relation to the present Jews also, God does not act unrighteously. Even now, those who are worthy are saved because they believe. Those who are unworthy perish because they do not believe.

"If Moses did not know who were worthy and who unworthy of punishment for taking part in the worship of the calf, are we to know the causes of what takes place?"

Therefore, although Esau wanted to receive the promise and ran toward it, another was counted worthy. Nevertheless, "one must will and run, and apply all one's strength to the work. But at the same time one must remember that without God's will neither the one who wills nor the one who runs reaches the goal, unless God's help comes.

God has mercy on and wills the one who himself wills to be saved."

So natural, and as if necessary, is this separation and removal. Why then, the Apostle says as it were, do you marvel and fall into perplexity when you now see some removed, or rather removing themselves, from the spiritual blessings given by the manifested Deliverer?

The words, "The elder shall serve the younger," were not always realized in fact. It was so from David to Jehoram (see 2 Sam 8:14; 2 Kgs 8:20-22) and under the Maccabees. For the most part, however, Esau's descendants were hostile toward Jacob's descendants and were as though foreign to them.

The servitude indicated here generally signifies a state of estrangement from the inheritance, like the state of slaves who have no part in this inheritance.

To the second belong the words: "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him Who calls." These are not inserted words. On the contrary, they are the chief words. They are placed in the middle to hold attention to them more compellingly.

They indicate that feature in God's actions which is revealed in the choosing of some to the inheritance of the promise and the removal of others from it.

Why did God announce to Rebecca, before her children were born and had done anything, that one of the two would be heir and the other removed from this like a slave?

He did this to show not only her, but everyone, that when He determines to choose one and remove another, He does so not on the basis of deeds already done by the one chosen or removed. He does it by Himself, as is proper to Him Who chooses or calls.

The words, "that the purpose of God according to election," and so forth, literally give these thoughts. "The purpose of God" means God's decision, determination, or simply God's will. "According to election" means according to the act of election, or concerning election, one to inheritance and another to removal from it.

"Might stand" means: let it be known to all that such a purpose, will, and determination takes place. "Not of works" means not of works already done by those whom this purpose concerns, as is seen in Jacob and Esau, concerning whom the decree was made before their birth.

"But of Him Who calls" does not mean depends or proceeds from Him, but takes place. It takes place, of course, in the way proper to Him Who calls, or in accordance with His properties.

There is no thought here of an unconditional divine decree appointing some to the inheritance of the promise and others to removal from it, without taking into account whether someone is worthy or unworthy. The thought is only that such a decree is formed not on the basis of manifested worthiness or unworthiness, but as is proper to Him Who makes the decree.

Or, He knows and is able to establish such a decree without such manifestation, yet in complete accordance with His own properties, righteousness and goodness. Such a decree may be set not according to already manifested worthiness or unworthiness, but according to what is foreknown.

Every divine purpose according to election happens precisely according to such foreknowledge. Our interpreters chiefly fix their attention on this thought.

St. Chrysostom says: "Why is one loved and the other rejected? Is it because one was wicked and the other good? But one was honored and the other condemned when they had not yet been born. Before their birth God said, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' Why did God say this? Because He does not wait, like a man, for the completion of the deed in order to see who is good and who is not. On the contrary, before this He knows who is good and who is not."

The same is read in blessed Theodoret: "God did not wait for trial in deed. While they were still being carried in the womb, He foretold their difference. He foretold it because He foreknew their disposition. This election is not contrary to justice, but accords with human disposition."

Photius in Oecumenius explains it thus: "The purpose of God means the will of God in election. 'Not of works' presents the greatness of God's calling and His grace, that He chooses and calls from those who have not yet done anything.

But you will say: how are those who have done nothing chosen? Election takes place according to the differences of those chosen. What difference is there among those who have done nothing? Certainly so.

But one must know that, for human eyes, since they have not yet done anything, they differ in nothing. For divine foreknowledge, which sees what is to be as present, they differ greatly from one another. One is pleasing to God, and the other is not.

Thus the will of God in election was not from works. It was according to calling and grace, and yet it was righteous, though such righteousness is not obvious to all men."

Ambrosiaster writes: "God's foreknowledge appears as what acts in these matters, because things cannot occur otherwise than as God foresees them as about to be. Knowing what each of them would be, God said: the younger will be worthy, and the elder unworthy.

Foreknowledge chose one and rejected the other. On the one whom it chose, God's purpose remains, because with him nothing else could happen except what God foresaw and purposed to be in him, namely that he should be worthy of salvation, that is, of the promise.

In the one whom it rejected, God's purpose likewise remains, because it foresaw that he would be unworthy, as indeed afterward proved to be the case. Therefore, because of foreknowledge, God does not appear as one Who shows partiality. He condemns no one who has not sinned and crowns no one who has not won the victory."