Romans 9:20Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He does not immediately give the solution, and this too he does profitably. First he stops the mouth of the objector, saying: “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”

The Apostle does this to remove idle curiosity and excessive agitation. He places a bridle on him and teaches him to understand the difference between God and man.

He also teaches how incomprehensible divine Providence is, how it surpasses our understanding, and how everything must submit to God.

He does this so that, after persuading the hearer, taming and humbling his thought, he may more easily give his solution.

Then he can make his words entirely understandable to the hearer.

He does not say that this cannot be resolved. What, then? He considers it sinful even to ask about it.

“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”

Do you see how he halts untimely curiosity, places a bridle on it, and teaches one to know the difference between God and man?

“But who are you?” Do you share with God in rule? Are you the judge of what He ought or ought not to do?

To say that this should be done in this way, and that in another, means to quarrel with God and act against Him.

This must by no means be done. Rather, one must accept with submission what has been done by God, however it has been done.

“Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, ‘Why have You made me thus?’”

Paul used this example not to abolish our free choice and present us as inactive and motionless.

He used it to teach us how we must submit to God and show Him deep and silent obedience.

Paul says that while you are still a thing made, like a lump of clay, and have not yet been brought to what is spiritual, it is right for you to refrain from such inquiry and not answer back to God. Only as a spiritual man can one judge all things and be judged by no one. Whoever wishes to know His thought must first be received among His friends. This is possible only for spiritual people, who already bear the image of the heavenly Man.

He answers their question with the words of Scripture: "Who will be able to resist Him? O man, who are you that you answer back to God concerning this?" (Is 45:9; Is 29:16).

It is great dishonor and presumption for a man to answer God with the opposite: unrighteousness against righteousness, evil against good, imperfection against perfection, weakness against strength, corruption against incorruption, mortality against immortality, a servant against the Master, a creature against the Creator.

Since you have said, says the Apostle, “Who can resist His will?” tell me, who are you? Are you not a man?

How, then, do you answer back and enter into an investigation of the divine economies?

If you were not free, and did not choose by your own will what to do, but slavishly followed God’s will by necessity, you would be silent like inanimate creatures.

You would love what takes place according to God’s economy. But since you have been honored with reason, you both speak and do what you wish.

You do not love what takes place, but search out the causes of the divine economies.

Some say that this, “Therefore, O man, who are you to answer back to God?” was spoken as a rebuke.

They say that the Apostle rebuked those who inquisitively investigate God’s works, and showed their nothingness, since human nature does not differ from clay. Then he added the solution.

Now the Apostle enters into contradiction with himself, speaking against what he said above: “God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

And again: “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”

The Apostle shows that decision and will belong to God when, as though contradicting himself, he says: “He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

It is not given to the clay, molded in the hands of the potter, to reason. Whatever he fashions from it, the vessel cannot object and demand to become what it would wish.

Yet here, speaking of the one who contradicts God’s will and disputes it, the Apostle shows that the one who dares to depart from God’s judgment possesses freedom of will.

In the third point the Apostle introduces a new objection in the following form: “You will say to me, ‘Why does He still find fault?’”

That is, why does God accuse and appoint to punishment those whom He rejects, such as Esau, Pharaoh, and the mass of the Hebrews, if everything in the world is ordered according to His will?

“Who has resisted His will?”; Rom 9:19-29.

First the Apostle suggests that, strictly speaking, man has no right to raise such questions because of his insignificance before God.

“But who are you, O man, that you dare to dispute with God? Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, ‘Why have You made me thus?’

Does not the potter have authority over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honorable use and another for low use?” Rom 9:20-21.

Although the whole course of the Apostle’s thought clearly shows God’s justice in His predestination, some still could not grasp this distinctly.

Therefore he offers further striking examples of the all-good and all-wise will of God. This will appoints some to salvation and others to perdition.

He points to anyone who builds something according to a plan he has conceived, and especially to a potter. The potter makes vessels from the same clay for uses that differ completely in dignity.

In these examples, at first sight, only the authority of the one who appoints comes to the fore: the builder and the potter, that is, the Creator.

Yet at the same time the dignity of the one appointed is also indicated: the clay, that is, man.

Chrysostom observes: “The Apostle does not immediately give the solution, but first stops the mouth of the objector.

He halts his untimely curiosity and excessive inquisitiveness, places a bridle on him, and teaches him to know the difference between God and man.

He also teaches how incomprehensible and exalted above our understanding God’s providence is, and how everything must submit to God.

He does all this so that, after persuading the hearer, reproving and humbling his will, he may more easily give his solution and make his words certain for the hearer.

He does not say that this cannot be resolved. What, then? He calls the question itself sinful.