Romans 9:16Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Where there are examples of such deeds, no one will ask or seek some excuse. Let us remember the histories of two men, David and Saul, and what each became after God’s judgment.

If it had turned out that Saul did good after God did not forgive him, then, God forbid, we would have judged God’s judgment unjust.

Or if David, after receiving forgiveness, had despised God. But he remained with Him from whom he received mercy.

In doing this, the Apostle speaks of everything almost literally in the words of the Old Testament. Then, as though penetrated by the severity and sharpness of Old Testament speech, he expresses the very teaching on predestination in a strict and sharp form: "Whom He wills. God has mercy on, and whom He wills, He hardens." Yet from the examples given we see that God loves, not those who are unworthy of this, but those who were righteous. Likewise, God did not withhold His special love from those who were meek and obedient, but from those who were disobedient and even cruel. Such was Pharaoh, whose cruelty was turned into punishment for him, in fulfillment of the word of Scripture: "By the things by which 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 will have mercy," and so forth. In the words of His Grace Theophan: "Saint Paul introduced this saying so that those who were perplexed over why not all the Jews entered into possession of the blessings of the promised Deliverer would frame this perplexity, not according to external facts that catch the eye, but from the idea of God as all-righteous and all-good."

At the same time, 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. Yet the holy Fathers and other interpreters direct their attention equally to both, lest anyone exaggerate the first and diminish the second.

Saint John Chrysostom, for example, says: "The chief intention of blessed Paul, through everything he said, was to teach that God alone knows those who are worthy. He Who knows the secrets of the heart knows perfectly who is worthy of crowns, and who is worthy 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 give the example of those born of one father and mother. Both were born of Rebecca and Isaac, the lawful son of Abraham, who was approved by God Himself and became the father of those who were to inherit the promises. If he is the father, then those who came from him ought also to be fathers. But this did not happen, for Esau was separated from this rank. From this we see that Abraham's children are called his own children, not only by birth, but also because they are worthy of the virtues of their parent. If they were so called by birth alone, Esau and Jacob ought to have enjoyed equal rights. On the contrary, what was required was not only such birth, but character. Yet the Apostle does not say that, since one was good and the other wicked, the former was preferred. He presents divine foreknowledge as the only cause, against which only someone completely senseless would dare to argue. Do not, then, demand an account from the Creator. Do not ask why one is crowned and another punished. He knows how to observe justice in all things. Therefore He said: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, that is, rejected. You know from what followed that this was just, but God knew it before it was fulfilled."

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 will have mercy,' this is certainly because He secretly entered the hearts of men with His eyes, and saw who was worthy of mercy and who was unworthy" (Isa 32).

With regard to the present Jews also, God does not act unrighteously. Even now those who are worthy are saved because they believe, and those who are unworthy perish because they do not believe. "If Moses did not know who were worthy and who were unworthy of punishment for taking part in the worship of the calf, is it for us to know the causes of what happens?" Therefore, although Esau wished to receive the promise and ran toward it, another was deemed worthy. Yet "one must will and run, and employ all one's strength in the work. At the same time one must remember that, without the will of God, neither he who wills nor he who runs reaches the goal, unless divine help comes. God has mercy on, and wills, the one who himself wills to be saved."

Meanwhile, according to the course of events, Esau should have received the promise of inheritance. Isaac had already resolved to do this, and had sent him to catch game and prepare food, so that, after eating, he might bless him. Had this happened, the word of the Lord, that "the elder shall serve the younger," would not have been justified. For in Esau's blessing it would have stood: "Be master over your brother" (Gen 27:29).

But the word of God can never prove false. God enlightened Rebecca to arrange matters so that Jacob would receive the blessing of the firstborn, and that the words prepared for Esau would be assigned to him. Therefore no one can change what God, according to His foreknowledge, has judged. This is so even if someone deliberately struggles to go against it. In this example, it was not deliberate opposition, but the ordinary course of human affairs.

Here was Isaac, who willed, and Esau, who ran. Yet the matter was arranged, not according to the will of him who willed, nor according to the labor of him who ran, but according to the mercy of God Who has mercy. Recalling this circumstance, the Apostle said: "not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who has mercy." No one will tear mercy away from the one whom God has judged worthy of mercy. Yet mercy is not assigned without discernment, but to the worthy.

We cite this circumstance in interpreting these words in order to show where the terms "him who wills" and "him who runs" came from, since this is tangibly evident in that event. Yet after this one may also understand the connection of the discourse in the following way. It was said above that God has mercy on the one on whom mercy should be shown. According to God's righteousness, mercy should be shown to the one who is worthy.

From this someone might conclude that everything here depends on good decisions of the will, that is, on "him who wills," and on the corresponding labors in fulfilling those decisions, that is, on "him who runs." The Apostle forestalls this: no, it is not from this. Will, yes, will; run, yes, run. Without this one cannot act. Yet the final decision of the matter still belongs to the mercy of God, or to grace, which strengthens the will and grants the power to fulfill it.

The one who, with all his desire and labors, entrusts his lot to the mercy of God proves worthy of mercy before God. This mercy crowns him. It may also seem that, according to the Apostle's thought, everything depends on the mercy and goodness of God Who has mercy, while man's own participation makes no difference whether it exists or not. But it only seems so.

The Apostle did not say, "not from willing, nor from running," but "not of him who wills, nor of him who runs." By this he shows that willing and running are not excluded. He only teaches that the one who wills and runs should not base his hope on this alone, still less present any rights on account of it.

Blessed Theophylact writes: "Here the Apostle seems to abolish free will, but in reality he does not. We say of a house that it is the work of the builder. Although the builder needs material and helpers for the construction, nevertheless, since it depends on him, we say that he built the whole house. So also we say of God that everything is His work, although God has need of our free choice. He accomplishes, He gives the crowns, and He condemns. Therefore we say that everything is the work of God."

We read the same in Oecumenius: "One must will and run, and employ all one's strength in the work. But at the same time one must remember that, without the will of God, neither he who wills nor he who runs reaches the goal, unless divine help comes. God has mercy on, and wills, the one who himself wills to be saved."

However these words are understood, they must have acted powerfully on the Jews, terrifying the unbelieving and filling the believing with joy. The latter is obvious in itself, but the Apostle had in view not them, but the former. Here he proves that if there are now unbelievers, this does not mean that the promise has failed. It means that they have proved unworthy of it, like Esau.

Objectors might say: the Jews will and run, they read the Law, perform all the services, and offer sacrifices. Why then are they excluded from the inheritance of the promise? The Apostle speaks as though saying: by appearance the inheritance also belonged to Esau. But because his soul was of another disposition, he did not receive it. So too these Jews, by appearance, ought to be heirs of the promise. But since their soul is not such as is required of its heirs, that is, since it is unbelieving, the promise is not given to them.

If the unbelieving had felt the force of such a conclusion, they should have received a strong impulse to examine more strictly what was taking place. They should have understood what God, ready to have mercy on them, desired from them. Yet an even stronger impulse should have been given to them by the conclusion drawn from the circumstance mentioned next.

The Lord says: "The Kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent take it by force" (Mt 11:12). But in the Apostle Paul we find that the work of salvation does not depend on us at all, and that God determined one lot or another before our birth (Rom 9:11, 16, 18). What relation does God's appointment have to our free will?

Answer. That the Kingdom of God suffers violence presupposes one's own efforts. When the Apostle Paul says, "this is not from us," it means that our own efforts do not give what is sought. Both must be joined: to strive, and to expect everything from grace. Our own efforts do not bring us to the goal, because without grace they do not go far. Nor does grace give what is hoped for without efforts, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both move man forward and bring him to the goal.

Predestination is incomprehensible. It is enough for us to believe with all our heart that it is never contrary to God's grace and righteousness, and that it does not violate human freedom. It is usually resolved thus: God foresees how man will act freely, and determines accordingly. Thus God's decree rests on man's life, and not life on the decree.