This discourse is elliptical. In both parts the second half of the expression is lacking. The preceding clause, beginning with "if," is present, but the consequent clause, which should answer the "if" with "then," is absent.
In the second verse, or part, even the preceding clause is incomplete. It says only, "that He might make known the riches," and so forth. But what exactly God did in order to make known these riches is not evident. Therefore both parts must first be completed.
It seems this may be done as follows. The consequent clause, which would answer the "if" with "then," must be borrowed from the preceding example of the potter's relation to the clay and the clay's relation to the potter.
Concerning the potter it is said: "Has he not power?" Concerning the clay it is said: "Shall it say to him who formed it?" Since verses 22 and 23 apply this example to the subject of the discourse, the missing words may rightly be supplied from this example.
For both parts one may take either of the two phrases cited, or one phrase for one part and the other for the other. This may be left to each one's judgment.
It would be thus. In the example it is said: has not the potter power from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? And the vessels do not object to him, asking why he made them so.
In the application it should follow: if now God assigns some, the unworthy, to dishonor and perdition, and brings others, the worthy, into glory, does He, in your opinion, not have power to do this? Or do these who have been assigned have power to ask: "Why thus?"
Thus the missing consequent clause for both parts is completed. How should the missing element in the second part of the antecedent be completed? What exactly did God do, that He might make known the riches of His glory?
For this, as Oecumenius does, the verb "bore" must be referred to both the first and the second part of the antecedent. In the first: He bore them to destruction. In the second: He bore them to glory.
All the remaining words explain how some came to be assigned to one end and others to another, and why God did one thing or the other.
The word "bore," ήνεγκεν, does not mean bearing in the sense of enduring. It means carrying, as things are carried from place to place. It means carrying away, bringing in, reckoning, appointing, assigning.
God carried some, reckoned them, appointed them to perdition. He carried others, reckoned them, appointed them to glory.
By Pharaoh are also meant, in general, all who do not heed the commands of God, who despise His will, and who count His ordinances as nothing. All such people of themselves are reckoned among the perishing. God confirms this lot for them, because it cannot be otherwise, or because they are worthy of nothing else.
Here the Apostle's thought concerns the separation from Israel's descendants of those who are not Israel. First he showed visible examples of separation in Ishmael and Esau. After that there was no such visible separation, as though all Israel's descendants were Israel.
Yet this was only in appearance. The unworthy separated themselves from this rank, and God knew them, though He did not declare it. Now, through the Gospel, this has come into the open.
Those who have formed themselves into vessels of wrath are reckoned to perdition by remaining outside the realm of faith. They are winnowed from the assembly of those being saved, as chaff from wheat on God's threshing floor.
Nevertheless, the Apostle has in view not only the Jews, but the whole human race. This is only more clearly seen in the Jews.
How did it happen that God bore others, that is, appointed them, to glory? It happened because God prepared them beforehand as vessels of mercy. This also occurred during the time of long-suffering.
Those formed themselves into vessels of wrath, while God prepared these beforehand as vessels of mercy. Is there unrighteousness with God? No.
God's intention was to prepare even the former, by His long-suffering, as vessels of mercy. But they did not wish this. Instead of acting according to God's indication and ordering, they acted according to themselves.
By this they formed themselves into self-willed men and fighters against God. For this they were justly deprived of mercy and reckoned among the vessels of wrath.
By contrast, the others followed God's ordinances and commands with complete obedience. Thus they formed themselves into God-devoted servants of God, having no other law than the will of God.
Being so disposed, they were plainly ready vessels of God's mercy, because they had formed themselves according to God's will.
It is said that God prepared them as vessels of mercy, as though apart from their will. This is said because all guidance toward such self-formation came from God. Those who willingly submitted to this guidance were helped by God.
It is not said because their will had no part in this. Since without both they could not form themselves into vessels of mercy, this is ascribed to God, though their will is not excluded.
Chrysostom says: "As Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath through his own lawlessness, so those who were saved became vessels of mercy through their own piety. Even if the greater part belongs to God, we nevertheless contribute something small from ourselves. He did not say vessels of merits or vessels of boldness, but vessels of mercy, thereby making known that everything belongs to God. Likewise, when he says, 'not of him who wills, nor of him who runs,' he does not destroy freedom. He shows that not everything belongs to man, but that he needs grace from above. Although one must both will and struggle, one must not rely on one's own struggles, but on God's love for mankind. Thus in another place the Apostle said of himself, 'not I, but the grace of God which was with me' (cf. 1 Cor 15:10). Why then are some vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? By their own choice. Yet God, according to His immeasurable goodness, shows mercy to both. For He had mercy not only on those being saved, but also on Pharaoh, as much as possible. Both those being saved and Pharaoh enjoyed the same long-suffering. If Pharaoh was not saved, it was entirely by his own will. On God's side Pharaoh lacked nothing in comparison with those being saved."
Why did God do this? In order "to show His wrath" and "make His power known" over the vessels of wrath, and to "make known the riches of His glory" upon the vessels of mercy.
The first is plainly taken from the experience shown in Pharaoh, to whom it was said: "For this very purpose I raised you up, that I might show My power in you." But God acts in the same way toward all who act impiously and do not submit to Him.
God is long-suffering toward them, while they interpret this long-suffering either as weakness, indulgence, or faintheartedness. Therefore God does not endure everything. He often punishes such impious and stubborn men, to show both His power and His wrath, as was clearly shown in Pharaoh.
This is the general law of God's providence concerning men. He endures all with long-suffering. If He punishes, He does so only so that men may not completely forget that there is a God.
He is not powerless to punish in an extraordinary way. Nor is He fainthearted, so as to be unable to resolve upon it.
No one can determine when the time of His long-suffering will end, or when righteous punishment will begin and the wrath of God will appear in power.
Therefore everyone must keep himself watchful. He must not lull himself with long-suffering, but rather expect wrath every moment. Believing that it will surely thunder forth, he must hasten to repent.
Then either he may turn wrath away from himself, or, if he falls under it with others, he may fall under it not for his perdition, but for his final purification.
In order to keep men in these saving thoughts, God sometimes manifests His wrath and His power in punishing sinners. He does this not at all in order to make a final settlement with them.
The present time is not the time of such a settlement. It is only the preparation for it.
By contrast, upon those who submit to Him, God manifests the riches of His glory. "The Apostle called God's love for mankind glory, giving us to understand that it chiefly constitutes the glory of God, and that God cares for this more than for anything else" (Chrysostom).
He did not simply say that God manifests glory or love for mankind. He said that He manifests the riches of glory or love for mankind, because God's mercy is always manifested richly. It exceeds the expectation of those who receive mercy and of those who see it from outside.
Perhaps mercy is called glory because it restores the glory of the pious and God-fearing, and thereby restores piety itself and the fear of God. Usually the impious belittle the pious, and seize and claim all glory and honor for themselves.
But when God subjects them to His wrath and manifests mercy to the pious, the former are put to shame and the latter are glorified. They are glorified precisely by God's glorification. The glory of God shines upon them.
God does this not to manifest the final recompense of His obedient servants. He does it so that they may not fall into despair when they meet contempt, oppression, and persecution.
Being assured that God's mercy always covers them and is always ready to appear upon them, they take courage. They bear all things patiently with joy, knowing that all this happens to them not for harm, but for their own good.
These are the general thoughts suggested by the Apostle's words. They must also be applied to the course of his argument.
He explains how it happened that not all Jews were called to share in the blessings of Christ the Lord, though He had been promised precisely to them. He also explains how the Gentiles were called in place of the rejected Jews.
It might have seemed that the promise had failed. Against this he says: it has not failed. For from the beginning it was shown that not all children according to the flesh are children of the promise.
Thus Ishmael was separated from this line. Thus Esau was separated. Why be amazed that now too a part of the Jews proves to have been separated from the inheritance? This belongs to the order of God's providence concerning us.
As he penetrates more deeply into why some are separated and others remain heirs, the Apostle did set down that God has mercy on whom He wills, and does not have mercy on whom He wills.
Yet he also made clear that He does both not indiscriminately, but has mercy on the worthy and obedient to Him. He does not have mercy on the unworthy and disobedient to Him.
This he showed with special clarity in Pharaoh, who underwent plagues and death for stubbornness before God, directly to His face.
But the worthiness of those shown mercy and the unworthiness of those not shown mercy are not always visible to us. Strictly speaking, they never are.
Meanwhile the inquisitiveness of the mind concerning God's judgments is not subdued by this. The troubled perplexities arising from it do not cease to disturb hearts, often even pious hearts.
Therefore, on the one hand to subdue inquisitiveness, and on the other to calm piety troubled by this, the Apostle raises everyone to surrender to God's will. He raises them to the conviction that all proceeding from God is good and right, as the Lord God Himself is good and right.
To present this more tangibly, he takes the example of the potter. From one and the same clay the potter makes vessels for honor and for dishonor, while the products are silent. They do not ask why he made one this way and another differently.
It is as though he says: as these vessels are silent, so be silent before God's dispositions. You see how He deprives some of mercy and richly pours it out upon others. Believe that both are done according to God's righteousness.
According to the course of the argument, this mercy is being numbered among the inheritance of the blessings promised to the fathers in the Savior. The lack of mercy is deprivation of this inheritance.
THEOSIS