Romans 9:22

22. What if God, &c.] The Gr. construction in Rom_9:22-23 is broken and peculiar. Rendered nearly lit., the verses run: But if God, choosing to demonstrate His wrath, and make known what He can do, bore with much longsuffering vessels of wrath, fitted unto ruin; and that He might make known the wealth of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He fore-prepared unto glory? The general drift of the passage, though thus grammatically peculiar, is yet clear.—The “but” suggests a certain difference between the potter’s work and that of the Creator and Judge; q. d., “If the potter’s right is so absolute, while the clay is mere matter and so has no demerit, the right of God over guilty humanity is at least as absolute; and meantime, even so, it is exercised with longsuffering.”

willing] having the will to. The Gr. verb is frequent of the sovereign Divine will and pleasure. See e.g. Mat_8:3; 1Co_12:18.

to shew] to demonstrate. Same word as Rom_9:17 (“shew my power”), and Rom_3:25 (“to declare,” &c.). The justice and energy of His wrath against sin are both demonstrated in the doom of the impenitent.

endured, &c.] The special case of Pharaoh is in St Paul’s view, and is to be taken as an example. There we see on the one hand the sovereign will permitting sin to run its course, but on the other hand, in equal reality, warnings and appeals are addressed by God to a human conscience and will, time after time. From our point of view the two things are incompatible; but the Apostle assures us that both are real, and therefore compatible.

the vessels] Lit. vessels. But the article is rightly supplied. The two classes of “vessels” are exhaustive of mankind.—The word “vessel” is doubtless suggested here by the language of Rom_9:21. See next note.

of wrath] i.e. “connected with, devoted to, wrath.” So below, “connected with, marked out for, mercy.” The genitive need not imply a metaphor, as if the “vessels” were “filled with” wrath or mercy; such an explanation would be needlessly remote.—The same word in same construction occurs Act_9:15, where lit. “a vessel of choice;” and probably the metaphor does there appear in the next words—“to bear my Name.” Cp. also 2Co_4:7; 1Th_4:4, (where “vessel” = “body”;) 1Pe_3:7. In those passages the metaphor is traceable to the idea of the body as the receptacle and casket, as it were, of the spirit. Here, as above said, the whole reference appears to be to the imagery of the potter’s work.

fitted] Made ready, suitable. Such indeed every “vessel of wrath” will prove to have been. It is remarkable that St Paul does not say “which He fitted.” A seemingly rigid logic may say that the lost must be as truly predestined to death as the saved to life; but such logic is faulty in its premisses: we do not know enough of the Eternal Mind and the nature of things to reason so[42]. It is at least to be noted that here, while the “preparation” of the saved for glory is expressly ascribed to God, that of the lost for ruin is so stated as to avoid such ascription. Meanwhile the deepest consciousness of human hearts, awakened to eternal realities, acquits God and accuses self.—St Paul, however, does not dwell on this. To relieve mystery is only a passing aim with him here.

[42] See further, Appendix H.

destruction] Ruin, perdition, the loss of the soul. See note on Rom_2:12 (on the word “perish;” where the Gr. is the verb cognate to the noun here).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What if God ... - If God does what the apostle supposes, what then? Is it not right? This is the second point in the answer to the objection in Rom 9:19. The answer has respect to the “two classes” of people which actually exist on the earth - the righteous and the wicked. And the question is, whether “in regard to these two classes God does in fact do wrong?” If he does not, then the doctrine of the apostle is established, and the objection is not valid. It is assumed here, as it must be, that the world is “in fact” divided into two classes - saints and sinners. The apostle considers the case of sinners in Rom 9:22.

Willing - Being disposed; having an inclination to. It denotes an inclination of mind toward the thing proposed. If the thing itself was right; if it was proper to “show his wrath,” then it was proper to be willing to do it. If it is right to do a thing, it is right to purpose or intend to do it.

His wrath - τὴν ὀργὴν tēn orgēn. This word occurs thirty-five times in the New Testament. Its meaning is derived from the idea of earnestly desiring or reaching for an object, and properly denotes, in its general sense, a vehement desire of attaining anything. Hence, it comes to denote an earnest desire of revenge, or of inflicting suffering on those who have injured us; Eph 4:31, “Let all bitterness and wrath, etc.” Col 3:8; 1Ti 2:8. Hence, it denotes indignation in general, which is not joined with a desire of revenge; Mar 3:5, “He looked round about on them with anger.” It also denotes punishment for sin; the anger or displeasure of God against transgression; Note, Rom 1:18; Luk 3:7; Luk 21:23, etc. In this place it is evidently used to denote “severe displeasure against sin.”sin is an evil of so great magnitude, “it is right” for God to be willing to evince his displeasure against it; and just in proportion to the extent of the evil. This displeasure, or wrath, it is proper that God should always be willing to show; nay, it would not be right for him not to show it, for that would be the same thing as to be indifferent to it, or to approve it. In this place, however, it is not affirmed,

That God has any pleasure in sin, or its punishment; nor, That he exerted any agency to compel man to sin. It affirms only that God is willing to show his hatred of incorrigible and long-continued wickedness when it actually exists.

To make his power known - This language is the same as what was used in relation to Pharaoh; Rom 9:17; Exo 9:16. But it is not probable that the apostle intended to confine it to the Egyptians only. In the following verse he speaks of “the vessels of mercy prepared “unto glory;” which cannot be supposed to be language adapted to the temporal deliverance of the Jews. The case of Pharaoh was “one instance, or illustration” of the general principle on which God would deal with people. His government is conducted on great and uniform principles; and the case of Pharaoh was a development of the great laws on which he governs the universe.

Endured - Bore with; was patient, or forbearing; Rev 2:3. “And hast borne, and hast patience, etc.” 1Co 13:7, “charity, (love) beareth all things.” Luk 18:7, “will not God avenge his elect. though he bear long with theme?”

With much long-suffering - With much patience. He suffered them to live while they deserved to die. God bears with all sinners with much patience; he spares them amid all their provocations, to give them opportunity of repentance; and though they are suited for destruction, yet he prolongs their lives, and offers them pardon, and loads them with benefits. This fact is a complete vindication of the government of God from the aspersions of all his enemies.

Vessels of wrath - The word “vessel” means a cup, etc. made of earth. As the human body is frail, easily broken and destroyed, it comes to signify also the body. 2Co 4:7; “we have this treasure in earthen vessels.” 1Th 4:4, “that everyone of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor” - that everyone should keep his body from the indulgence of unlawful passions; compare Rom 9:3. Hence, also it means “the man himself.” Act 9:15, “he is a chosen vessel unto me, etc.” compare Isa 13:5. In this place there is doubtless, allusion to what he had just said of clay in the hands of the potter. The phrase “vessels of wrath” denotes wicked people against whom it is fit or proper that wrath should be shown; as Judas is called “the son of perdition,” see the note at Joh 17:12. This does not mean that people by their very creation, or their physical nature, are thus denominated; but people who, from long continuance in iniquity, deserve to experience wrath; as Judas was not called “son of perdition” by any arbitrary appointment, or as an original designation, but because in consequence of his avarice and treason this was the name which “in fact” actually described him, or suited his case.

Fitted - κατηρτισμένα katērtismena. This word properly means to “restore; to place in order; to render complete; to supply a defect; to fit to, or adapt to, or prepare for;” see Mat 4:21, “Were mending their nets.” Gal 6:1, “restore such an one, etc.” In this place it is a participle, and means those who are suited for or “adapted to” destruction; those whose characters are such as to deserve destruction, or as to make destruction proper. See the same use of the word in Heb 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed” - beautifully suited up in proper proportions, one part adapted to another - “by the Word of God.” Heb 10:5, “a body hast thou prepared for me;” suited, or adapted to me; compare Psa 68:10; Psa 74:16. In this place there is not the semblance of a declaration that “God had prepared them, or fitted them for destruction.” It is a simple declaration that they were in fact suited for it, without making an affirmation about the manner in which they became so.

A reader of the English Bible may, perhaps, sometimes draw the impression that God had suited them for this. But this is not affirmed; and there is an evident design in not affirming it, and a distinction made between them and the vessels of mercy which ought to be regarded. In relation to the latter it is expressly affirmed that God suited or prepared them for glory; see Rom 9:23, “Which he had afore prepared unto glory.” The same distinction is remarkably striking in the account of the last judgment in Mat 25:34, Mat 25:41. To the righteous, Christ will say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you, etc.” To the wicked, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;” not said to have been originally prepared “for them.” It is clear, therefore, that God intends to keep the great truth in view, that he prepares his people “by direct agency” for heaven; but that he exerts “no such agency” in preparing the wicked for destruction.

For destruction - εἰς ἀπώλειαν eis apōleian. This word occurs in the New Testament no less than 20 times; Mat 7:13, “Which leadeth to destruction.” Joh 17:12, “son of perdition.” Act 8:20, “thy money perish with thee;” Greek, be for destruction with thee, Act 25:16; Phi 1:28, “Token of perdition.” Phi 3:19, “whose end is destruction.” 2Th 2:3, “the son of perdition.” 1Ti 5:9, “which drown men in destruction and perdition.” Heb 10:39, “which draw back into perdition; see also 2Pe 2:1, 2Pe 2:3; 2Pe 3:7, 2Pe 3:16, etc. In these places it is clear that the reference is to the future punishment of wicked people, and in “no instance” to national calamities. No such use of the word is to be found in the New Testament; and this is further clear from the contrast with the word “glory” in the next verse. We may remark here, that if people are suited or prepared for destruction; if future torment is adapted to them, and they to it; if it is fit that they should be subjected to it; then God will do what is fit or right to be done, and, unless they repent, they must perish. Nor would it be right for God to take them to heaven as they are; to a place for which they are not suited, and which is not adapted to their feelings, their character, or their conduct.

Rom 9:23

And that he might make known - That he might manifest or display. The apostle had shown (in Rom 9:22) that the dealings of God toward the wicked were not liable to the objection made in Rom 9:19. In this verse he proceeds to show that the objection could not lie against his dealings with the other class of people - the righteous. If his dealings toward neither were liable to the objection, then he has “met the whole case,” and the divine government is vindicated. This he proves by showing that for God to show the riches of his glory toward those whom he has prepared for it, cannot be regarded as unjust.

The riches of his glory - This is a form of expression common among the Hebrews, meaning the same as his rich or “his abundant glory.” The same expression occurs in Eph 1:18.

On the vessels of mercy - People toward whom his mercy was to be displayed (see Rom 9:22); that is, on those toward whom he has purposed to display his mercy.

Mercy - Favor, or pity shown to the miserable. Grace is favor to the undeserving; mercy, favor to those in distress. This distinction is not, however, always strictly observed by the sacred writers.

Which he had afore prepared - We are here brought to a remarkable difference between God’s mode of dealing with them and with the wicked. Here it is expressly affirmed that God himself had prepared them for glory. In regard to the wicked, it is simply affirmed that they “were fitted” for destruction, without affirming anything of the agency by which it was done. That God prepares his people for glory - commences and continues the work of their redemption - is abundantly taught in the Scriptures; 1Th 5:9, “God hath appointed us, to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2Ti 1:9, “who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” See also Eph 1:4-5, Eph 1:11; Rom 8:28-30; Act 13:48; Joh 1:13. As the renewing of the heart and the sanctifying of the soul is an act of goodness, it is worthy of God, and of course no objection could lie against it. No man could complain of a course of dealings designed to make people better; and as this is the sole design of the electing love of God, his deal, ings with this class of people are easily vindicated. No Christian can complain that God has chosen him, renewed him, and made him pure and happy. And as this was an important part of the plan of God, it is easily defended from the objection in Rom 9:19.

Unto glory - To happiness; and especially to the happiness of heaven Heb 2:10, “It became him, in bringing many sons unto glory, etc.” Rom 5:2, “we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” 2Co 4:17, “our light affliction worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,” 2Th 2:14; 2Ti 2:10; 1Pe 5:4. This eternal state is called “glory,” because it blends together everything that constitutes honor, dignity, purity, love, and happiness. All these significations are in various places attached to this word, and all mingle in the eternal state of the righteous. We may remark here,

(1) That this word “glory” is not used in the Scriptures to denote any “external national privileges;” or to describe any external call of the gospel. No such instance is to be found. Of course the apostle here by vessels of mercy meant individuals destined to eternal life, and not nations externally called to the gospel. No instance can be found where God speaks of nations called to external privileges, and speaks of them as “prepared unto glory.”

(2) As this word refers to the future state of individuals, it shows what is meant by the word “destruction” in Rom 9:22. That term stands contrasted with glory; and describes, therefore, the future condition of individual wicked people. This is also its uniform meaning in the New Testament.

On this vindication of the apostle we may observe:

(1) That all people will be treated as they ought to be treated. People will be dealt with according to their characters at the end of life.

(2) If people will suffer no injustice, then this is the same as saying that they will be treated justly. But what is this? That the wicked shall be treated as they deserve. What they deserve God has told us in the Scriptures. “These shall go away into everlasting punishment.”

(3) God has a right to bestow his blessings as he chooses. Where all are undeserving, where none have any claim, he may confer his favors on whom he pleases.

(4) He actually does deal with people in this way. The apostle takes this for granted. He does not deny it. He most evidently believes it, and labors to show that it is right to do so. If he did not believe it, and meant to teach it, he would have said so. It would have met the objection at once, and saved all argument. He reasons as if he did believe it; and this settles the question that the doctrine is true.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Rom 9:22-23. What if God, willing, &c. — Referring to Rom 9:18-19. That is, Although it were now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief; to show his wrath — Which necessarily presupposes sin; and to make his power known — This is repeated from Rom 9:17; yet endured — As he did Pharaoh — With much long-suffering — Which should have led them to repentance; the vessels of wrath — Those who had moved his wrath, by still rejecting his mercy; fitted for destruction — By their own wilful and final impenitence: is there any injustice in this? And that he might make known — What if, by showing such long-suffering even to the vessels of his wrath, he did the more abundantly show the greatness of his glorious goodness, wisdom, and power; on the vessels of mercy — On those whom he had himself, by his grace; prepared for glory — Is this injustice? By vessels of mercy he means such persons as were formerly miserable by being dead in trespasses and sins, but had afterward, through believing the gospel, obtained mercy, even the great mercy of the forgiveness of sins, with the fruits and consequences of it; and by the term προητοιμασεν, he means, God’s fitting them for glory, by working in them true repentance and living faith, by justifying and sanctifying them, and giving them all those qualifications necessary for the attainment of it.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 9:22. Εἰ δὲ, but if) This particle has this as its apodosis to be supplied at the end of Rom 9:23 from Rom 9:20: God has much greater cause to complain concerning man, and man has less cause to expostulate with God [than the potter concerning the clay, and the clay with the potter]. Comp. ἐὰν, Joh 6:62, where also the apodosis is to be supplied. It is a question, but one implied, not expressed, with an ellipsis, What reply hast thou to make [if God willing to show, etc., endured, etc.].—θέλων, willing) Corresponds to the, His will, Rom 9:19, and to, He will, Rom 9:18. Paul speaks κατʼ ἄνθρωπον, [“after the manner of man:” or, taking advantage of his opponent’s unavoidable admission] in the words of his opponent; and so εἰ signifies whereas, [since, as you must grant]. At the same time, we must observe that what he says of the vessels of wrath is more scanty, and of the vessels of mercy more copious; willing to show, he says, not, [willing, putting forth His will] that he might show, comp. next verse [where in the case of the vessels of mercy, he says, ἵνα γνωρίσῃ, though here Rom 9:22 in the case of the vessels of wrath, he says, γνωρίσαι], and Eph 2:7—ἐνδείξασθαι—τὀ δύνατον αὐτοῦ, to show His power) These words are repeated from Rom 9:17.—τὴν δργὴν, wrath) He does not say, the riches of his wrath; comp. Rom 9:23.—τὸ δυνατὸν) This signifies, what He can do (potentiam ‘might’) not what He may do (potestatem ‘right’ [ἐζουσία]).—ἢνεγκεν, endured) as He endured Pharaoh.—ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ, with much long-suffering) viz: in order that it might allure the wicked [the reprobate] from their state of alienation from Him to repentance, ch. Rom 2:4; 2Pe 3:9. God endures many bad men, in the enjoyment of great and long continued good fortune in this life, when He might at the very first have consigned them to death. The gate of mercy and grace is still open to them. This long-suffering, humanly speaking, precedes His “will to show His wrath,” nor does it merely follow it. His enduring is not wont to be exercised until He is about to show His wrath]: wherefore ἤνεγκεν should be translated, had endured [previous to His will to show His wrath.] By this very circumstance the question, who hath resisted? Rom 9:19, is most powerfully refuted.—ὀργῆς) of wrath, which is not indeed without cause, but presupposes sins; he does not say, of disgrace, nor unto wrath, but of wrath, [i.e. the fault is in themselves.]—κατηρτισμένα, fitted) It denotes the disposition [fitness] internal and full, but now no longer free [no longer now liable to change], not the destination; he does not say, which He προκατήρτισε, previously fitted, although he says in the next verse, which he prepared, comp. Rom 9:19, ch. Rom 11:22, note; Mat 25:34, with Mat 25:41, and Act 13:46, with Act 13:48. This is distinct from the efficient cause; what is said merely refers to the state in which God finds the reprobate, when He brings upon them His wrath.—εἰς ἀπώλειαν, to destruction) The antithesis is, Rom 9:23, unto glory.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:22 f. forms a conditional interrogative sentence, the apodosis of which is not expressed, but is gathered from the context, viz.: Wilt thou still be able to venture the ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι τῷ Θεῷ of Rom_9:20 f.? Must thou not utterly become dumb with thy replies? Comp. on Joh_6:61; Act_23:9; Luk_19:41 : see also Calvin and Calovius, in loc.; Fritzsche, Conject. p. 30; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 212; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 297. This aposiopesis with εἰ δὲ corresponds perfectly to our: but how if, etc. It is to be translated: But how if God, although minded to manifest His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath, which are nevertheless adjusted for destruction, in order also to make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory? Paraphrased, the sense is: But if God, notwithstanding that His holy will disposes Him not to leave unmanifested His wrath and His power, but practically to make them known, has nevertheless hitherto, full of long-suffering, endured such as are objects of His wrath, and spared them from the destruction, to incur which they are nevertheless constituted and fitted like a vessel by the potterendured them and spared them not merely as a proof of such great long-suffering towards them, but also with the purpose in view of making known, during the period of this forbearance, the fulness of His glorious perfection in respect to such as are objects of His mercy, whom He, as the potter fashions a vessel, has prepared beforehand, and put in order for eternal glory,how, in presence of that self-denying long-suffering of God towards vessels of wrath, and in presence of this gracious purpose, which He withal, at the same time, cherishes towards the vessels of mercy, must any desire to dispute with God completely depart from thee!

In detail the following points are to be observed: δὲ is neither equivalent to οὖν, nor resumptive, but the simple μεταβατικόν, making the transition to something further, namely, from the previous dismissal of the objector to the refutation which puts him to shame. Tholuck (comp. also Weiss, Reithmayr, and others) takes it antithetically, so that the sequence of thought would be: I assert this as Gods absolute right against you, if you choose to take your stand on the point of right; but how if God has not so much as even dealt thus, etc.? But such an interpretation, which would require the contrast to be much more strongly marked than by the mere δὲ, is at variance with the retention in the sequel of the figurative ΣΚΕΎΗ and their preparedness; because it is thence evident, that what Paul had previously said concerning the freedom of God to prepare men of different character and destiny like potters vessels, he by no means intended to cancel, as if God had not thus dealt. Θέλων is, with Fritzsche, Philippi, Lamping, and several others, to be resolved by although, because only thus is there yielded the logically correct preparation for the notion of πολλὴ μακροθυμία, which is a self-denying one; the θέλειν ἐνδείξασθαι κ.τ.λ. is the constant essential characteristic of the holy God, and yet He has borne, etc. The analysis: because God willed (so most, including de Wette, Rückert, van Hengel), yields the sense that God has, in order thereupon to issue all the more evident a penal judgment, endured patiently, etc.; but this would not amount to a πολλὴ μακροθυμία, but in fact to a delay occasioned by an ungodlike motive, and having in view the heaping up of wrath. Unworthy of God, and only rendered possible by the importation of parenthetical thoughts, is the sense which Hofmann educes: God has not so borne with those men, that He would first see how it would be with them, in order then to deal with them accordingly; but He has done so with the will already withal firmly settled, to prove, etc. That negative and this already firm settlement of will are read between the lines.

Θέλων is placed at the head of the sentence, in order by contrast the more forcibly to prepare the mind for the notion for which it is intended to prepare, that of the μακροθυμία. ΤῸ ΔΥΝΑΤῸΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ is what is possible to Him, what He is in a position to do. Comp. Rom_8:3, τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. Xen. Hell. i. 4. 13, τοῦ τῆς πόλεως δυνατοῦ. As to the matter itself, see 3Ma_2:6. The aorist ἬΝΕΓΚΕΝ does not refer to the long forbearance with Pharaoh (Chrysostom, de Wette, and most); the reference to him has been already concluded with Rom_9:18; but Paul intends generally the time hitherto (which will in like manner run on under this divine long-suffering up to the Parousia), when God has still restrained the will of His holiness, and has not yet accomplished the destruction of the objects of His wrath, which He will do for the first time in judgment. The σκεύη ὀργῆς, without the article, vessels of wrath, denotes not some, but such σκεύη generally, qualitatively understood, namely, vessels which are prepared (Rom_9:20 f.) to experience Gods wrath on themselves, to be the objects of it. The effect of this wrath, which will go forth at the judgment, is everlasting destruction; hence κατηρτ. εἰς ἀπώλ., adjusted for destruction (not ripe for destruction, as Weiss and Hofmann explain), serves to bring the μακροθυμία into still clearer relief, which is not that which waits for the self-decision of human freedom (Beyschlag), especially for amendment (in opposition to Bengel, Tholuck, and others), but that which delays the penal judgment (comp. on Luk_18:7), the prolongatio irae, Jer_15:15, et al. The passage Rom_2:4 f. is no protest against this view, since the apostle does not there, as in the present passage, place himself at the standpoint of the absolute divine will. The subject who has adjusted those concerned for ἀπώλεια is God; and any saving clause whereby the passive sense is made to disappear, or the passive expressionwhich, after Rom_9:20 f., not even a certain refinement of piety is to be suggested as underlyingis made to yield the sense that they had adjusted themselves for destruction, or had deserved it (see Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, and many; also Steudel, Olshausen, Reithmayr, Beck, Hofmann, and Krummacher), is opposed to the literal meaning and to the context (Rom_9:21). See also Lamping, p. 213. Hofmanns interpretation especially: who had advanced to that point, and found themselves therein, is wrecked on his incorrect explanation of τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως, Rom_9:20. In καὶ ἵνα κ.τ.λ., καί is also, introducing, in addition to the object involved in the previous ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ, that accessory object which God had in view in enduring the vessels of wrath in reference to vessels of mercy (the use of the genit. ἐλέους corresponds to that of ὀργῆς, Rom_9:22). Besides His great long-suffering towards those, He would also make known how rich in glory He was towards these. For had He not so patiently tolerated the σκεύη ὀργῆς, but already caused the penal judgment to set in upon them (which is to be thought of as setting in along with the Parousia, not antecedently to this, like the destruction of Jerusalem), He would have had no space in which to make known His glory on σκεύεσιν ἐλέους. But this purpose was to be served exactly by that long period of forbearance, during which such σκεύη as were prepared beforehand by God for eternal δόξα should through their calling (Rom_9:24) be led to Christ, and thereby the fulness of the divine glory should be made known in respect to them; which making known is matter of fact (Eph_3:10). In τῆς δόξ. αὐτοῦ, the context directs us to think of the divine majesty in relation to its beneficent glory, its glory in the bestowal of blessing; but εἰς δόξαν, as the opposite of εἰς ἀπώλ., denotes the everlasting Messianic glory (Rom_8:21; Rom_8:30). The verbs ἑτοιμάζειν and καταρτίζειν are not as different from one another as existence (Dasein) is from mode of existence (Sosein),an assertion of Hofmanns as incorrect as it is devoid of proof,but ἑτοιμάζειν also denotes to constitute qualitatively, to prepare in the corresponding quality (1Co_2:9; Eph_2:10; Phm_1:22; Mat_3:3; Luk_1:17; Luk_2:31; Joh_14:2, et al.). Comp. here especially 2Ti_2:21. Against such an error the well-known reflexive use of ἑτοιμάζειν ἑαυτόν (Rev_8:6; Rev_19:7) should have warned him, as well as the equivalent use of the middle (1Ma_5:11; 1Ma_12:27, and very frequently in the classics). It is solely with a view to variety and illustration that Paul uses for the same notion the two verbs, of which Hofmann rationalizes the ἑτοιμάζειν to mean: that it is God who has caused those who attain to glory to come into being for the end of possessing the glory, to which they thereupon attain by the fact that He pours forth His own upon them. Nor is there anything peculiar to be sought behind the change from passive to active; the transition to the active was more readily suggested by the thought of the activity of love. The προ in προητοίμασεν is not to be disregarded (see on Eph_2:10); nor is it to be referred to the time before birth, nor to the aeterna electio (the latter is the act of God, which before time preceded the praeparatio); but to the fact that God has so previously fashioned the σκεύη ἐλέους, before He makes known His glory on them (just as the potter fashions the vessel), that is, has constituted in them that ethical personality, which corresponds to their destination to obtain eternal δόξα through Christ. In ἐπὶ the act of making known is contemplated as extending over the men, who are its objects. If, with Beza and Fritzsche (Conject. p. 29; not abandoned in his Comment. p. 343 f., but placed alongside of the ordinary mode of connection), we should make καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ κ.τ.λ. dependent, if not simply on κατηρτισμένα (Rückert), yet on κατηρτ. εἰς ἀπώλειαν (so also Beyschlag), in which case καὶ would have to be taken most simply as and, the entire balance of the discourse would be deranged, inasmuch as the important thought καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ κ.τ.λ., on which the whole sequel depends, would be subordinated to a mere secondary definition. The centre of gravity of the argument lies in the bearing with the vessels of wrath on the part of the divine long-suffering; and thereof in Rom_9:23 there is brought forward an explanation glorifying God, which is added in respect to the σκεύη ἐλέους. The connection above referred to would also certainly yield a severity of thought, a rigour of telic view, which, granting all the boldness of deduction with which Paul follows out the idea of predestination, yet finds nothing further in accord with it in the whole treatise; the thought, namely, that God has made ready the σκεύη ὀργῆς for destruction, in order, through the effect of the contrast, the more fully to make known His glory in the σκεύεσι ἐλέους.

It is further to be remarked, (1) That the interrogative conditional sentence forming an aposiopesis terminates with Rom_9:23, and is not (with Fritzsche) to be extended to Rom_9:24, since all that follows from Rom_9:25 onward belongs to the topic started in Rom_9:24. (2) That we are not, following Reithmayr and older commentators with Philippi, to supply a second εἰ between ΚΑῚ and ἽΝΑ in Rom_9:23, and to assume that Paul had intended at the close of Rom_9:23 to say ἘΚΆΛΕΣΕΝ ΑὐΤΟΎς, but that he at once directed his glance at the concretes, and therefore wrote ΟὛς ΚΑῚ ἘΚΆΛΕΣΕΝ ἩΜᾶς instead of ἘΚΆΛΕΣΕΝ ΑὐΤΟΎς. Thereby a rambling and confusion in the presenting of his thoughts is, quite unnecessarily, imputed to the apostle, which would be very glaring, particularly in a dialectic passage so stamped throughout with clearness, definiteness, and precision as the present. Similarly, but still more confusedly, Tholuck. The language in Rom_9:22-23 is condensed and rich in thought, but runs on according to plan and rule in its form. (3) The apodosis (which on our understanding is not expressed) is not to be found in Rom_9:23, because this would only be possible by arbitrarily supplying hoc fecit, or the whole preceding chief sentence. So Ewald: so He did that also, in order that He might make known, on the other hand, the riches of His glory, etc.; so also Th. Schott and Hofmann.

With our explanation agree substantially Calvin, Grotius, and several others; including Winer, p. 530 [E. T. 713]; Baur, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 200; Lamping and van Hengel, whilst Umbreit educes something which has no existence in the passage, as though it ran: εἰ δὲ ἔθελεν ὁ Θεὸς … ἀλλʼ ἤνεγκεν κ.τ.λ. (He has, on the contrary, endured, etc.)

Rom_9:22-29. Fourth part of the Theodicée: God, full of long-suffering, has borne with vessels of wrath, in order withal to make known His glory on vessels of mercy, as which He has also called us Christians both out of the Jews and out of the Gentiles. Comp. on Rom_9:22-23; Wis_12:20-21. These two kinds of σκεύη are necessarily the same as those meant in Rom_9:21 (in opposition to Weiss, p. 66 f., and bibl. Theol. p. 383). This is shown by the retention of σκεύη, as well as by the attributes κατηρτισμένα and ἃ προητοίμασεν corresponding to the ποιῆσαι of Rom_9:21, just as εἰς ἀπώλειαν aptly corresponds to the εἰς ἀτιμίαν, and εἰς δόξαν to the εἰς τιμήν, Rom_9:21. The former vessels as κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν are necessarily σκεύη ὀργῆς, for the divine ὀργή and ἀπώλεια are correlates, which suppose one another. But the guilt, which is supposed by the notion of ὀργή, is, in the entirely consistent connection of our passage, presentedby the καταρτίζειν which precedes the guilt, and in virtue of which God has made them such as they are and not otherwiseas the consequence of the moral development conditioned by this previous preparation. Weiss fails to recognise the onesidedness of the mode of view here necessarily intended and boldly carried out by the apostle, which will not, moreover, bear the attempts of Hofmann to explain it away, or those of Beyschlag to twist the notion; the latter least of all, on the subjective ground that the strictly understood notion of σκεύη ὀργῆς is incapable of fulfilment, which at the absolute standpoint of the text it is not.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 9:22-29 . Paul’s argument, to speak plainly, has got into an impasse . He is not able to carry it through, and to maintain the sovereign freedom of God as the whole and sole explanation of human destiny, whether in men or nations. He does, indeed, assert that freedom to the last, against the presumptuousness of man; but in this third section of his theodicy, he begins to withdraw from the ground of speculation to that of fact, and to exhibit God’s action, not as a bare unintelligible exercise of will, which inevitably provokes rebellion, but as an exercise of will of such a character that man can have nothing to urge against it. εἰ δὲ : the δὲ marks the transition to the new point of view. It is as if Paul said: You may find this abstract presentation of God’s relations to man a hard doctrine, but if His actual treatment of men, even of those who are σκεύη ὀργῆς κατ . εἰς ἀπώλειαν , is distinguished by longsuffering and patience, what can you say against that? θέλων has been rendered (1) because it is His will; (2) although it is His will. In the former case, God bears long with the vessels of wrath in order that the display of His wrath and power may be more tremendous at last. But ( a ) such an idea is inconsistent with the contrast implied in δέ : it is an aggravation of the very difficulty from which the Apostle is making his escape; ( b ) it is inconsistent with the words ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ ; it is not longsuffering if the end in view is a more awful display of wrath; there is no real longsuffering unless the end in view is to give the sinner place for repentance. Hence the other view (2) is substantially right. Although it is God’s will to display His wrath and to show what He can do, still He does not proceed precipitately, but gives ample opportunity to the sinner to repent and escape. We are entitled to say “the sinner,” though Paul does not say so explicitly, for ἡ ὀργή , the wrath of God, is relative to sin, and to nothing else: except as against sin, there is no such thing as wrath in God. In σκεύη ὀργῆς the word σκεύη is perhaps prompted by the previous verse, but the whole associations of the potter and the clay are not to be carried over: they are expressly precluded by ἤνεγκεν ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμία . Paul does not say how the σκεύη ὀργῆς came to be what they are, the objects upon which the wrath and power of God are to be revealed; he only says that such as they are, God has shown great patience with them. It seems a mistake in W. and H. to print σκεύη ὀργῆς as a quotation from Jer 50 (LXX 27):25; for there the words mean “the instruments by which God executes His wrath,” les armes de sa colère (Reuss). κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν : ἀπώλεια (Phi 1:28 ; Phi 3:19 ) means perdition, final ruin; by what agency the persons referred to have been fitted for it Paul does not say; what he does say is, that fitted for such a doom as they are, God has nevertheless endured them in much longsuffering, so that they at least cannot say, Why dost thou find fault? For κατηρτισμένος = perfected, made quite fit or ripe, see Luk 6:40 , 1Co 1:10 : cf. also 2Ti 3:17 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 22-24. “Now if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And [if] that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, us, whom he also called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles”...

Many commentators, Tholuck for example, find in the δέ, now, which they translate by but, the indication of a strong contrast, and think that Paul is setting over against God’s abstract right, expounded in Rom 9:19-21, the real use which He has made of it in the history of the Jewish people: Thou, O man, art in any case incompetent to dispute God’s right; but what, when I shall prove to thee that He has not used it rigorously, and that His conduct toward thee is still marked with the most wonderful long-suffering! But such a contrast would have demanded a stronger adversative particle (ἄλλα, but); and this notion of a purely abstract right is rather philosophical than religious. Is it not simpler to take Rom 9:19-21 as giving the figure, and Rom 9:22-24 the application? It is evident that the figure of vessels unto dishonor, Rom 9:21, finds its corresponding expression in vessels of wrath, Rom 9:22, as the figure of vessels unto honor, Rom 9:21, finds its corresponding term in vessels of mercy, Rom 9:23. It is equally obvious that to the liberty used by the potter over the lump of clay which is at his disposal, to make of it vessels of different destinations, Rom 9:21, there corresponds the power of God displayed either in the form of wrath or in that of grace in Rom 9:22-23. It is therefore the transition from the figure to the application which is indicated by the δέ, and the particle ought therefore to be translated by now. But in the form: Now if, there is at the same time contained a gradation. For Paul means thereby that God has not even dealt with Israel as the potter with his vessel. We seek the principal proposition on which depends the sentence: Now, if willing..., and we do not find it; but it is easy to understand it from what precedes: “Wilt thou still find fault, O Jew? wilt thou do what the vessel would not dare to do against the potter? Wilt thou still accuse God of being unjustly angry?” We shall see afterward the point in the following passage where this understood principal proposition finds its logical place.

Vv. 22 describes God’s dealing with the vessels unto dishonor; Rom 9:23-24 will describe His dealing with the vessels of value. The relation between the participle θέλων, willing, and the verb ἤνεγκεν, He endured, may be explained in three ways, expressed each by one or other of the conjunctions, when, because, or though. In the first connection the meaning would be: “When He had the intention of”...Instead of striking at once, as He already purposed doing, He bore with patience. The relation thus understood is only slightly different from that which would be expressed by though. The connection expressed by because (De Wette, Rück., and others), would signify that God’s long-suffering had no other end than to bring about an accumulation of wrath; but would such long-suffering deserve the name? It is obvious from Rom 2:4-5 that if the long-suffering produces this painful result, this is not the intention of Him who bears long, but the fault of those who abuse His forbearance to harden themselves the more. The true relation is consequently that expressed by the conjunction though (Fritz., Philip., Meyer). There is, in fact, a natural contrast between the long-suffering and the manifestation of wrath, and it is this contrast which is expressed by the though.

God’s intention in regard to the Jews was moving on to the display of His wrath and the manifestation of His power. In these expressions there is an evident allusion to the saying of God regarding Pharaoh, as just quoted, Rom 9:17; comp. the expressions ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργήν, to show wrath, Rom 9:22, and ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοί, to show in thee, Rom 9:17; τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ, His power, Rom 9:22, τὴν δύναμίν μου, my power, Rom 9:17. This because unbelieving Judaism was playing toward the church, at the date of Paul’s writing, exactly the same part as Pharaoh formerly played toward Israel themselves. As this tyrant sought to crush Israel in its cradle, so Israel was endeavoring to crush the church at its first steps in the world. And hence God’s dealings with Pharaoh must be now reproduced in the judgment of Israel.

The manifestation of wrath refers at once to the doom of destruction which was already suspended over the head of the nation in general, and to the condemnation of all unbelieving Israelites in particular; comp. Rom 2:5, and the saying of John the Baptist, Mat 3:10; Mat 3:12. We might refer the manifestation of God’s power to the mighty efficacy of God’s Spirit creating a new people in Israel from the day of Pentecost onward, and thus preparing the spiritual Israel, which was to replace the carnal Israel when the latter is to be rejected. But it is to Rom 9:23-24 that this idea belongs; and the allusion to the power displayed in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Rom 9:17) leads us rather to apply this expression to the near destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish people by the arm of the Romans, which was to be in this unexampled catastrophe the instrument of God’s wrath and power.

The execution of this destruction, long ago determined and clearly announced by Jesus Himself, God delayed for forty years; that is the long-suffering of which the apostle here speaks. It seems as if, at the very moment when Israel was laying its deicidal arm on the person of the Messiah, God should have annihilated it by a thunderbolt. But, agreeably to the prayer of Him who said, “Father, forgive them,” a whole period more of long-suffering was granted them, and not only of long-suffering, but of tender and urgent invitation by the preaching of the apostles. Is not Paul then right in characterizing God’s dealings with Israel by the words: “Though He was already determined to...He endured with much long-suffering”? Comp. the accumulated expressions of goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering. Chrysostom and De Wette have applied this word endured to God’s patience with Pharaoh. This was to make a simple allusion the explanation; Paul has finished with Pharaoh long ago. According to Meyer, Paul means that God put off the judgment of the Jewish people, because as the destruction of Jerusalem was to be the signal of the end of the world, if God had hastened this event there would have remained no more time for the conversion of the Gentiles. This idea is bound up with the explanation given by Meyer of the that, Rom 9:23. But it is difficult to suppose that Paul, who, according to 1Th 2:16, was expecting the destruction of the Jewish people as close at hand, and who yet, according to chap. 11, placed the conversion of all Gentile nations and the restoration of the Jews before the end of the world, could have imagined that all these phases of the great drama of humanity were to be accomplished in so brief a time. The meaning which we have given presents none of these difficulties.

But those Jews to whom God extends such marvellous long-suffering are none the less already vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. The term: vessels of wrath, signifies, according to Lange: “vessels on which wrath falls,” that is to say, which He will break in His wrath. But Rom 9:21 and the completely parallel passage, 2Ti 2:20, show that the point in question is the use, and consequently the contents of those vessels. The meaning is therefore: all saturated with wrath; not for the purpose of emptying it on others, like the angels who hold the seven vials of divine wrath, Revelation 16 (Lange’s objection), but to taste all its bitterness themselves.

The perfect participle κατηρτισμένα, prepared, fitted to, has given rise to great discussions; for the apostle does not tell us by whom this preparing was made. Meyer contends that it should be ascribed to God Himself. He supports his view by the regimen following: to destruction, which indicates a judgment of God. But we find in Rom 2:4 an authentic explanation from the apostle himself on this subject. If the Jews are actually ripe for judgment, he says, it is not the fault of God, who has faithfully pointed them to repentance and salvation; it is the effect of their own hardening and impenitent heart which has changed the treasures of divine grace into treasures of wrath heaped on them. What answer does Meyer give to this? He holds that the apostle moves between two irreconcilable theories. In chap. 2 Paul stood, it is true, at the viewpoint of human liberty; but here he starts from the standpoint of absolute divine will. But is it probable that a mind so logical as Paul’s should accept such an irreducible duality of views? And what seems stranger still is, that from Rom 9:30 of our chapter onward, and in the whole of chap. 10, he replaces himself anew at the standpoint of human liberty, and reproduces exactly the same explanation as in chap. 2! Finally, while in the following verse he directly ascribes to God the preparation of the elect for salvation: “which He has prepared unto glory,” he deliberately avoids expressing himself thus in speaking of the preparation of the Jews for destruction. He here employs, instead of the active verb prepare, with God as its subject, the passive participle: fitted to. The understood subject of this action of fitting appears not only from Rom 2:4, but more clearly still if possible from the passage, 1Th 2:15-16 : “The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway; but wrath is come upon them to make an end of them.” It thus appears who is the author of the present ripeness of the Jews for judgment in Paul’s view. It is not God assuredly who has Himself prepared vessels which please Him not, and of which He is in haste to make an end. De Wette even acknowledges that the apostle “avoids saying by whom they have been fitted to destruction.”

The perfect participle used by the apostle denotes a present state which has been previously formed in a certain manner; but this participle indicates absolutely nothing as to the mode in which this state has been produced; hence the expressions ripe or ready for...very well render the thought contained in this term; comp. Luk 6:40. The choice of the verb καταρτίζειν, to arrange perfectly, equip (for example, a vessel, that it may be ready to set sail, see Passow), shows also that the point in question is not the beginning of this moral development (which would have required the term ἑτοιμάζειν, Rom 9:23), but its end. In using this term, Paul means to designate the result of the historical development of the people: their present state as being that of full ripeness for divine judgment. So this expression has been rightly explained by the Greek Fathers, Grot., Calov., Beng., Olsh., Hofm., etc. As to the manner in which St. Paul viewed the formation of this state of perdition, we may determine it with certainty by what he has said in chap. 1 of the analogous development wrought among the Gentiles. First, they voluntarily extinguished the light which burned in them by natural revelation; then, as a punishment, God gave them up to their evil propensities, and thereafter evil overflowed like a flood; comp. Rom 1:24; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:28. The same was the case with Pharaoh; he began by hardening himself when confronted with the first signs of the divine will; then God hardened him; again he hardened himself; and finally, judgment took hold of him. Thus it is always that the two factors, the human and the divine, concur in the tragical development of such a moral state. As is admirably said by Lange: “These two points of view [which are alleged to be contradictory] fall into one, according to which every development in sin is a tissue of transgressions due to human responsibility, and of judgments coming from God.” It is exactly so with Israel. The development of their state of perdition begins face to face with the Mosaic and prophetic revelations, whose sanctifying influence they reject; it continues in presence of the appearance and work of Jesus Himself; and now it reaches its goal with the rejection of the apostolical preaching and the perfidious obstacles raised by Israel against this preaching throughout the whole world. After such a history this people deserved the judgment of hardening which overtook them (Rom 11:8-10), more even than Pharaoh.

Perdition, ἀπώλεια, does not merely denote external punishment, the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the people; it is also the condemnation of the wilfully unbelieving Israelites. It is quite obvious, indeed, that this ripeness of the people for condemnation did not prevent the individual conversion of any of its members, any more than the collective entrance of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God, Rom 9:27, prevents the unbelief and hardening of individuals among them. And this is what explains the object of God’s long-suffering toward this people even when ripe for destruction; He wished to allow all those who might yet separate from this mass time to respond to the gospel call (Act 2:40). To the long-suffering of God with the already devoted nation, there is added the merciful work whereby God draws from within it the foreknown believers to form the nucleus of the church (Rom 9:23-24).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:22, Rom_9:23

But what if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering 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 unto glory, even us, etc.? These verses contain Pauls second answer to the difficulty presented in the 19th verse. He had shown in Rom_9:20, Rom_9:21, that in virtue of his relation to men as his sinful creatures, God is at perfect liability to dispose of them at his pleasure, pardoning one and punishing another, as seemeth good in his sight. He now shows that in the exercise of this right there is nothing unreasonable or unjust, nothing of which his creatures have the least right to complain. The punishment of the wicked is not an arbitrary act, having no object but to make them miserable; it is designed to manifest the displeasure of God against sin, and to make known his true character. On the other hand, the salvation of the righteous is designed to display the riches of his grace. Both in the punishment of the one class and the salvation of the other, most important and benevolent ends are to be answered. And since for these ends it was necessary that some should be punished, while others might be pardoned, as all are equally undeserving, it results from the nature of the case that the decision between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy must be left to God. The apostle would, moreover, have it remarked, that even in the necessary punishment of the wicked, God does not proceed with any undue severity, but, on the contrary, deals with them with the greatest long-suffering and tenderness. Such seems to be the general purport and object of these difficult verses.

The attentive reader will perceive, that even with the insertion of the word what, which has nothing to answer to it in the original, and with a sign of interrogation at the end of Rom_9:24, the construction of the passage in our version remains ungrammatical and the sense incomplete. As the difficulty exists in the Greek text, and not merely in our translation, the explanations which have been proposed are very numerous. Many of these are presented and canvassed by Tholuck and Wolf, particularly the latter. There are three views taken of the connection, which are the most plausible.

1. The two verses are considered as both referring to the rejection of the wicked, for which Rom_9:22 assigns one reason, and Rom_9:23 another. What if God, willing to show his wrath, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, so that also he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, etc. The treatment of the wicked was not only to display the divine displeasure against sin, but also, by contrast, his mercy towards his people.‹49› But, in order to make the two verses cohere in this way, it is necessary to transpose the words at the beginning of the 23rd verse, and read that also, instead of and that, which alters the sense materially, while for such a transposition there is no authority. Besides this, it makes Rom_9:23 too subordinate to Rom_9:22; that is, it makes Gods dealings towards the vessels of mercy merely an incidental topic, instead of having equal prominence with his treatment of the vessels of wrath. From the context we are led to expect a vindication of his course, not only in the destruction of the latter, but in the salvation of the former.

2. A second explanation is to make the second clause of Rom_9:22 and the beginning of Rom_9:23 depend on the first words of Rom_9:22. God willing to show his wrath and make his power known, and (willing) that the riches of his glory should be known, etc. This gives a good sense, though the construction is suddenly, and rather violently, changed at the beginning of Rom_9:23, that he might make known, being substituted for the infinitive, to make known.

3. Tholuck makes Rom_9:24 parallel with Rom_9:23, and explains the passage thus, God, willing to manifest his wrath, bore with the vessels of wrath; and that he might make known his mercy, called us, etc. This gives a very good sense, but assumes the construciton to be irregular to a very unusual degree. Though the second method be somewhat irregular, it seems, on the whole, the least objectionable, and gives a sense obviously consistent with the context. The meaning of the apostle is sufficiently plain. He asks a question εἰ δέ, but if. What can be said if God, to manifest his justice, bears with the vessels of wrath, and to manifest his grace prepares the vessels of mercy? There is nothing in this inconsistent with the character of God, or the rights of his creatures.

The two objects which Paul here specifies as designed to be answered by the punishment of the wicked, are the manifestation of the wrath of God, and the exhibition of his power. The word wrath is used here as in Rom_1:18, for the divine displeasure against sin, the calm and holy disapprobation of evil, joined with the determination to punish those who commit it.‹50› The power of God is conspicuously displayed in the destruction of the wicked, no matter how mighty or numerous they may be. Though the inherent ill-desert of sin must ever be regarded as the primary ground of the infliction of punishment, a ground which would remain in full force, were no beneficial results anticipated from the misery of the wicked, yet God has so ordered his government that the evils which sinners incur shall result in the manifestation of his character, and the consequent promotion of the holiness and happiness of his intelligent creatures throughout eternity.

God treats the wicked, not as a severe judge, but with much long-suffering. The expression vessels of wrath, no doubt suggests itself from the illustration of the potter used in the preceding verse; though the term vessel is used not infrequently in reference to men, Act_9:15; 1Pe_3:7. Vessels of wrath, i.e. vessels to receive wrath, or which are destined to be the objects of wrath. This is a modification of the expression in Rom_9:21, σκεῦος εἰς ἀτιμίαν, vessel unto dishonor.

Fitted to destruction, κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν. This phrase admits of two interpretations. The passive participle may be taken as a verbal adjective, fit for destruction. This leaves undetermined the agency by which this fitness was effected. Comp. 2Co_10:10; 1Pe_1:8. In favor of this view is the change of expression adopted in 1Pe_1:23. Of the vessels of wrath, it is simply said that they are fit for destruction; but of the vessels of mercy, that God prepares them for glory. Why this change, if the apostle did not intend to intimate that the agency of God is very different in the one case from what it is in the other? Besides, as it is the object of the writer to vindicate the justice of God in these dispensations, it is specially pertinent to represent the vessels of wrath as fit for destruction in the sense of deserving it. The other interpretation assumes that the reference is to God, and that κατηρτισμένα has its full participle force; prepared (by God) for destruction. This is adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by many Lutherans and Neologists. This sense they say is demanded by the context. God is compared to a potter, who prepares one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor. So God prepares some for wrath and some for mercy. This, however, is not to be understood in a supralapsarian sense. God does not create men in order to destroy them. The preparation intended is that illustrated in the case of Pharaoh. God did not make him wicked and obdurate; but as a punishment for his sin, he so dealt with him that the evil of his nature revealed itself in a form, and under circumstances, which made him a fit object of the punitive justice of God. The dealings of God as a sovereign are often, by the Jewish writers, spoken of in the same terms as those here used; see Moed Katon, fol. 9, 1. Exiit filia vocis, dixitque eis; vos omnes ordinati estis ad vitam seculi futuri. Megilla, fol. 12, 2. Memuchan, Est_1:14, i.e., Haman. Cur vocatur nomen ejus Memucan? quia ordinatas est ad poenas. R. Bechai in Pentateuch, fol. 132. Gentes ordinatae ad gehennam: Israel vero ad vitam. Fol. 220, 4, Duas istas gentes vocat Salomo duas filias, dicitque ad gehennam ordinatas esse. Bechoroth, fol. 8, 2. R. Joseph docuit, hi sunt Persae, qui preparati sunt in gehennam. Wetstein on Act_13:48.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The second answer is this, that God, moreover and besides that he doth justly decree whatsoever he doth decree, useth that moderation in executing of his decrees, as declareth his singular lenity even in the reprobate in that, that he suffereth them a long time, and permitteth them to enjoy many and singular benefits, until at length he justly condemns them: and that to good end and purpose, to wit, to show himself to be an enemy and revenger of wickedness, that it may appear what power he is of by these severe judgments, and finally by comparison of contraries to set forth indeed, how great his mercy is towards the elect.

By vessels, the Hebrews understand all kinds of instruments.

Therefore again, we may say with Paul that some men are made of God the Creator to destruction.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

What if God, willing to show--"designing to manifest"

his wrath--His holy displeasure against sin.

and to make his power--to punish it

known endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath--that is, "destined to wrath"; just as "vessels of mercy," in Rom 9:23, mean "vessels destined to mercy"; compare Eph 2:3, "children of wrath."

fitted for destruction--It is well remarked by STUART that the "difficulties which such statements involve are not to be got rid of by softening the language of one text, while so many others meet us which are of the same tenor; and even if we give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge an omnipotent and omniscient God we cannot abate in the least degree from any of the difficulties which such texts make." Be it observed, however, that if God, as the apostle teaches, expressly "designed to manifest His wrath, and to make His power (in the way of wrath) known," it could only be by punishing some, while He pardons others; and if the choice between the two classes was not to be founded, as our apostle also teaches, on their own doings but on God's good pleasure, the decision behooved ultimately to rest with God. Yet, even in the necessary punishment of the wicked, as HODGE observes, so far from proceeding with undue severity, the apostle would have it remarked that God "endures with much long-suffering" those objects of His righteous displeasure.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 22. What if God, willing to show his wrath] The apostle refers here to the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and to which he applies Jeremiah's parable of the potter, and, from them, to the then state of the Jews. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were vessels of wrath-persons deeply guilty before God; and by their obstinate refusal of his grace, and abuse of his goodness, they had fitted themselves for that destruction which the wrath, the vindictive justice of God, inflicted, after he had endured their obstinate rebellion with much long-suffering; which is a most absolute proof that the hardening of their hearts, and their ultimate punishment, were the consequences of their obstinate refusal of his grace and abuse of his goodness; as the history in Exodus sufficiently shows. As the Jews of the apostle's time had sinned after the similitude of the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and abusing his goodness, after every display of his long-suffering kindness, being now fitted for destruction, they were ripe for punishment; and that power, which God was making known for their salvation, having been so long and so much abused and provoked, was now about to show itself in their destruction as a nation. But even in this case there is not a word of their final damnation; much less that either they or any others were, by a sovereign decree, reprobated from all eternity; and that their very sins, the proximate cause of their punishment, were the necessary effect of that decree which had from all eternity doomed them to endless torments. As such a doctrine could never come from God, so it never can be found in the words of his apostle.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. And what, etc. A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.

The particles, εἰ δὲ, used by Paul, I take to mean, And what if? so that the whole sentence is a question; and thus the sense will be more evident: and there is here an ellipsis, when we are to consider this as being understood, — “Who then can charge him with unrighteousness, or arraign him?” for here appears nothing but the most perfect course of justice.

But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be examined. He then argues thus, — There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and, further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth; — what is there worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted, according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behoves us rather to adore than to scrutinize.

And he has mentioned vessels, as commonly signifying instruments; for whatever is done by all creatures, is, as it were, the ministration of divine power. For the best reason then are we, the faithful, called the vessels of mercy, whom the Lord uses as instruments for the manifestation of his mercy; and the reprobate are the vessels of wrath, because they serve to show forth the judgments of God.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(22) What if . . .—The sentence in the original is incomplete. In its full form it would run, “If God willing to show His wrath” . . . (what can man reply?) This latter clause is dropped or lost in the course of the argument. The best and simplest expedient to supply its place is that adopted in the Authorised version, inserting “what” in italics at the beginning: “What if,” &c. There is a second suppression later in the sentence. At the end of Rom_9:23 we should have to insert some such clause as “He reserved His glory for them,” in order to make the sentence strictly grammatical. These irregularities are due to the Apostle’s habit of dictating, and to the lively flow of his thoughts.

Willing.—While His will was (ultimately) to execute His wrath and display His sovereign judicial power, nevertheless He bore with evildoers, and gave them time for repentance.

(22-29) These verses supply the concluding section of the vindication. All this scheme of God’s dealings, apparently so severe, is really most merciful. To those who really deserved His wrath, He showed longsuffering. While for us who now believe, Gentiles as well as Jews, He had mercy and glory in store. But in both cases the final result was strictly in accordance with prophecy. Hosea had foretold the admission of the Gentiles. Isaiah the exclusion of the greater part of the Jews.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And that he might make known the riches of his glory,.... That is, his glorious riches, the perfections of his nature, his love, grace, and mercy, his wisdom, power, faithfulness, justice, and holiness; all which are most evidently displayed in the salvation of his people, here called

vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory. They are said to be vessels, and so considered as creatures, made and brought into being; "vessels of mercy", and so fallen creatures, and by sin become miserable, for only such are objects of mercy: they are not called so, because deserving of mercy more than others, they are in no wise better than others, and are by nature children of wrath, even as others; but because God of his infinite goodness fills them with his mercy, displays it in them, in the redemption of them by his Son, in the regeneration of them by his Spirit, and in their eternal salvation: and these are by him "afore prepared unto glory"; to everlasting happiness, which he has chosen them to before time, and calls them to in time; to this glory he does not take them, until he has prepared them for it; which act of preparation does not regard the eternal predestination of them to eternal life, but an act of his grace towards them in time; and which lies in putting upon them the righteousness of his Son, and in putting his grace in them; or in other words, in justifying them by the imputation and application of the righteousness of his Son unto them, and by the regeneration, renovation, and sanctification of their hearts, by his Spirit. Now what if God willing to make known his glorious perfections, by displaying his mercy to such sinners, and by preparing them for heaven in a way consistent with his holiness and justice, what can any man that has the exercise of his reason object to this? The whole of his conduct is free from blame and censure; the vessels of wrath he shows his wrath upon, are such as fit themselves for destruction, and whom he endures with much longsuffering and patience, and therefore he cannot be chargeable with cruelty; the vessels of mercy he brings to glory, none of them are taken thither, until they are prepared for it, in a way of righteousness and holiness, and therefore he cannot be charged with acting contrary to the perfections of his nature.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Ver. 22. Fitted to destruction] Non dicit Deum eos aptasse ad interitum, ne videretur dicere Deum eis indidisse peccatum, quo ad exitum praeparentur. (Molinaeus.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And if God, &c. He now gives the reason why God might, without any injustice, have mercy on some, and not on others; grant particular graces and favours to his elect, and not equally to all; because all mankind was become liable to damnation by original sin: the clay that al are made of, is a sinful clay; and as St. Augustine says, was become a lump and mass of damnation. Every one had sinned in Adam. Now, if out of this sinful lump and multitude God, to shew the richness of his glory, and superabundant mercy, hath chosen some as vessels of election, whom he hath decreed to save, and by special graces and favours to make partakers of his heavenly kingdom; and to shew his justice and hatred of in, hath left others as vessels of his wrath and justice, to be lost in their sins, which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hat done unjustly? (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

In this and in the next verse, is a real answer to the cavil in Rom 9:19. The apostle having spoken before of God’s absolute right and power over his creatures, to dispose of them at his pleasure, as the potter doth his clay; lest any should tax God with tyranny and partiality towards his creatures, he subjoineth the reasons of his different proceedings with the one and with the other. q.d. What hast thou to answer or object against God, if he take a severe course with some? Seeing:

1. He thereby manifesteth his great displeasure against sin, and his power to take vengeance of sinners. Seeing:

2. He bears long with them in their sins; exerciseth great patience towards them in the midst of their provocations, giving them space to repent, if they call or will. And seeing:

3. They are vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction; partly by themselves, and their own sensual courses; partly by God’s righteous judgment, who gives them up thereunto.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22, 23. Of these two vessels, the perverse vessel and the obedient vessel, Paul now unfolds, in less figurative phrase, the different treatment at the hand of God. Of the former vessel, the original representative instance still is the Jews of Jeremiah, (chapters 18, 19,) who persist in their perversity, and are again (Jer_19:1) typified by Jeremiah as a broken potter’s vessel, (passages which our readers should carefully study,) while their antitype is the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day, with a specimen of whom Paul is now reasoning. Of the latter or obedient vessel, the primitive type is naturally Jeremiah and the few faithful of his day; and their antitype is the us of Rom_9:24, namely, Paul and his brother believers.

In these two vessels God unfolds by his dealings the absolute rectitude of his government and character. The perversity of the one he endures (not decrees or foreordains) for a due time in order that the world may duly read the lesson; in the latter he displays the riches of his glory in anticipation of final glory.

22. God—The Almighty Potter.

Willing—That is, will-ing, determining.

Show—Not merely to feel, but to reveal in action, and in conspicuous cases, like Pharaoh, to make it memorable in history.

Wrath—Of a perfectly just Being the wrath must be perfect justice, exerted in executive action. The Almighty Potter determines to show his wrath consequently upon the vessel’s determining persistently to show his perversity. So in Jeremiah 18, 19, the potter’s vessel is broken after its living impersonations had persevered in final hardness.

Power known—In penalty like a God.

Endured… longsuffering—Both these expressions contradict the dogma that God predestinates the obduracy of the vessel of wrath. The apostle’s theory is not predetermination, but non-prevention of the sin. God endured, not decreed, with much longsuffering, not with a hypocritical “secret will” in its favour. The words endured, and in the next verse prepared, are instances of Paul’s aoristic tenses as explained in our notes on Rom_3:23; Rom_4:12; Rom_8:29.

Vessels of wrath—Because persistent vessels of perversity.

Fitted—Alike by their own obduracy and God’s forbearance. Mark St. Paul’s caution in saying that God himself prepared the obedient vessel for glory, (Rom_9:23.) He does not say that God prepared the vessel of wrath. As Fletcher of Madeley says, “Our salvation is of God; our damnation is of ourselves.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 22-24. What if (literally, but if, involving an anacoluthon) God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels (not, as in the Authorized Version, the vessels) of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy which he afore prepared unto glory; whom he also called, even us, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles . "And" at the beginning of ver. 23 is omitted in the uncial B, and there is considerable authority of versions and Fathers for rejecting it. Without it the sentence runs better, and its drift becomes more apparent. The purpose expressed in ver. 23 thus comes out distinctly as the grand ultimate Divine purpose, to which the display of wrath and power spoken of in the previous verse is but subsidiary; and this drift becomes the more apparent, if we supply in English, as we may do, "while" before "willing" in ver. 22. Thus the drift would be, "What If God, while willing to exhibit his wrath and manifest his power, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath that had become fitted for destruction, in order that he might manifest the riches of his glory," etc. The idea expressed by "endured," etc., seems suggested by Pharaoh"s case (see on ver. 17 with regard to the word diethrhyhv in the LXX, which the apostle appears here to retain the idea of, though he varied from it); but it is the Jewish nation of his own day that he has now in view. They were rejected from inheritance of the promises, and under Divine wrath; as he says in another place, "The wrath had come upon them to the uttermost". (1Th_2:16) But they were still borne with; they were not finally cut off; and what if their present rejection were but subservient to the great purpose of mercy to the true Israel? The thought, hinted here, is carried out in Ro 11, where even the idea is further entertained of Israel itself as a nation, after judgment endured, coming into God"s true fold at last, according to the design of God, through ways inscrutable by us, to "have mercy upon all." The forms of expression used in the passage before us are to be noted in support of the view we have taken of St. Paul"s general meaning. "The vessels of wrath" are said to be "fitted to destruction" (kathrtismena eiv apwleian); of the "vessels of mercy" it is said that God "afore prepared" them unto glory. Predestination to salvation is certainly a doctrine of St. Paul, but he nowhere intimates predestination to reprobation. Further, "Non dicit quae prokathrtise , sod kathrtismena : praescinditur a causa efficiente: tantum dicitur quales inveniat Deus quibus tram infert" (Bengel). Lastly, it may be observed that, though a prophtoimasen eiv doxan carries with it the idea of individual salvation, yet this only comes in as the outcome and ultimate purpose of the calling of nations or races of men. The drift of the preceding argument remains still what it has been stated to be.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What if God, being willing - Referring to ver. 18, 19. That is, although it was now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief, To show his wrath - Which necessarily presupposes sin. And to make his power known - This is repeated from the seventeenth verse. Yet endured - As he did Pharaoh. With much longsuffering - Which should have led them to repentance. The vessels of wrath - Those who had moved his wrath by still rejecting his mercy. Fitted for destruction - By their own wilful and final impenitence. Is there any injustice in this?

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

God’s power exerted in the interest of men:

v. 22. What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,

v. 23, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory,

v. 24. even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

v. 25. As He saith also in Hosea, I will call them My people which were not My people, and her beloved which was not beloved.

v. 26. And it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, there shall they be called the children of the living God.

v. 27. Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved;

v. 28. for He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness, because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

v. 29. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.

If the question is one merely of right on the part of God, then the answer can be only that which St. Paul gave, vv. 19-21. But a different question entirely is that, whether God makes use of this absolute sovereignty and power with regard to the eternal fate of man, his salvation or condemnation. But if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has borne in much long-suffering the vessels of wrath destined to condemnation! Will the reasonable objections still be maintained? Although God, in carrying out the judgment of hardening and condemnation upon the sinners, thus wanted to exhibit His wrath and make known His power, yet He bore the vessels of this wrath previously with the greatest patience. Men had incurred God’s wrath, they deserved the full measure of His indignation and anger. But the Lord was full of mercy and long-suffering; His patience had the purpose of leading the sinners to repentance, 2Pe 3:9. Even though the sinners were altogether fitted for destruction, still God had patience with them; the measure of their transgression is full to overflowing, and yet God does not pour out upon them the vials of His wrath. He leaves no stone unturned in the effort to bring them to their senses. This is the other side of the essence of God, in which His love and mercy comes into consideration. This is the manner in which the patience of God is manifested, as many examples from history will demonstrate. And these facts take away all strength from the opponent’s argument.

But God had also a second object in view in enduring the vessels of wrath: in order to make known the wealth of His glory upon the vessels of mercy which He has prepared before unto glory, us, whom He also has called, not only of Jews, but also of Gentiles. The very fact that God showed such an abundance of patience in the case of the vessels of wrath incidentally had the object to give a proof and manifestation of His glory upon the vessels of mercy, the believers, in whom His glorious purpose is realized. By calling the believers from the midst of both the Jews and the Gentiles, by converting them to Christ, He has glorified Himself, Eph 1:6; His work has redounded to His own praise and honor. For by the call of God the vessels of mercy have received His mercy, He has made them the recipients and bearers of His grace in Jesus Christ. And the same people have been prepared beforehand for the glory of heaven, Mat 25:34: both their call and their entrance into glory is a result of God’s counsel of grace. Thus God glorified Himself upon the vessels of mercy through the manifestation of His grace, and at the same time He gathered for Himself, from Jews and Gentiles, a people that here sees and enjoys the abundance of His goodness and mercy and will finally behold His glory in all eternity.

These facts St. Paul now substantiates by a reference to the Old Testament Scriptures, giving first of all a free quotation from Hosea, chap. 2:3, to show that God’s people were to be gathered from the Gentiles also: I will call that which is not My people My people, and her who is not beloved, beloved; and it will be in the place where it was said to them, My people you are not, there will they be called the sons of the living God. See 1Pe 2:10. Although the prophet refers to the readmission of Israel as the people of God, Paul’s quotation of the passage in favor of the acceptance of the Gentiles is fully justified, for the words incidentally indicate the manner in which God at all times accepts strangers into communion with Him. Out of the land of the heathen, from out of the midst of the Gentiles, from all nations on earth, the Lord wanted to gather and is gathering to Himself His Church. He is extending His mercy, calling, converting the heathen also, making them His own, to live under Him in His kingdom, to serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness.

But St. Paul brings quotations also to substantiate His statement that God is calling the members of His Church from the midst of the Jews. He refers to Isa 10:22-23, where Isaiah calls out over Israel: If the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved; for the word, the oracle of God, is brought to an end and fully decided upon in righteousness; for the judgment will be quickly carried out. It is a final and decisive work which the Lord executes in the land by saving the remnant of Israel in the midst of the general destruction which comes upon the obstinate sinners. When the great mass of Israel is struck by the tidal wave of God’s judgment of destruction, the Lord will save a remnant, will bring a few of them to the knowledge of their Savior, the true Messiah. The second quotation from Isaiah. chap. 1:9, is in verbal agreement with the Greek translation: If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, as Sodom we should have become and been made like unto Gomorrah. Over the great majority of the Jewish people the judgment of God was poured out from the time of Isaiah to the final destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. According to man’s judgment, the end would have been the annihilation of the Jewish race, as in the fate which overtook Sodom and Gomorrah. But the Lord preserved for Himself a seed, an escaped part, a remnant, saved for future growth, the little band of true Israelites that accepted Jesus as their Redeemer. And thus, just as Paul contends, the Lord has chosen His own from both Gentiles and Jews, gathering them unto Himself into His Church. Therefore, also, every objection to the work of God must be withdrawn, all offense must be acknowledged to be wrong and foolish. The facts here presented are bound to remove all false conceptions of God. If we but keep the love and mercy of God before our eyes, as we have experienced them so abundantly, then the only sentiment to be found in our hearts will be a feeling of joy and gratitude over the miracles of God’s grace, as shown to us daily.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As if the apostle had said, "What though God doth not presently punish the obstinate and unbelieving Jews according to their desert, but beareth with them, and exercises forbearance towards them, and they go on by their continual rebellions to make themselves fit objects of his wrath; but he is pleased still with great gentleness and patience to bear with them as he did with Pharaoh; and if after all they be more hardened, as he was, by God’s forbearance, what show of injustice, I pray, is it, of he punishes them at last with greater severity, as God did him? If he swallow up their nation, destroy their temple, ruin thier city, what injustice is it to destroy those, who, by making themselves objects of God’s wrath, are fitted for destruction?"

Here note, That the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, are such as, the apostle sayeth, God endured with much long suffering; and therefore they were not made vessels of wrath by God, but by themselves; after they had filled up the measure of their sins, and thereby fitted themselves as vessels for destruction. God endured them with much long-suffering, though judgment at last took hold upon them to the uttermost.

Learn hence, That Almighty God may, without the least suspicion of injustice or unrighteousness, punish with the utmost severity such a person or a people, whom he hath long endured with much forbearance, to go on in course of sinning, if at last they repent not. This was the manner of God’s dealing with the Jews here. His lenity towards the Gentiles is next expressed, ver. 22 That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, &c.

As if the apostle had said, Can God be taxed with unrighteousness, in showing the riches of his glorious grace and mercy towards the despised Gentiles, whom he hath called to the faith of Christ, and thereby fitted and prepared them to be vessels of mercy? Hath he not just right to show his mercy to such persons who have submitted to the terms upon which he hath promised favour and acceptance, and to own them as his peculiar people, although they be not the natural seed of Abraham, seeing they are his spiritual?

Note here, That as the unbelieving Jews were called, in the former verse, vessels of wrath; so the believing Gentiles are called, in this verse, vessels of mercy; because as vessels are fitted and formed by the hand of the artificer for the use to which they are designed, in like manner are believers wrought by God and framed by his Holy Spirit, and made meet to receive the mercy of God, that is, the fruits and effects of his mercy, especially pardon of sin and peace with God.

Concerning the vessels of wrath, the apostle speaks passively; they are fitted for destruction: concerning the vessels of mercy, he speaks actively, that God has prepared them unto glory; that is, made them meet and fit by grace here for glory hereafter.

Learn thence, That the new creation of the saints, and all the spiritual workmanship that is found upon them, is to be ascribed unto God, and to the effectual working of his grace: He hath afore prepared them unto glory.

Learn, 2. That the fullest measures of glory hereafter shall be the portion of such, and only such, as are first prepared by grace and holiness to receive them here.

Learn, 3. That those only are vessels of mercy, prepared by God unto glory, who upon the evangelical call have been prevailed with, by faith and repentance, to answer the command and call of God: That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessesl of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us whom he hath called.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. “But if God, wishing to show forth his indignation and make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath which had been perfected for destruction.” “Fitted,” E. V., which I translate “having been made perfect,” is the identical word constantly translated “perfect,” setting forth Christian perfection. Hence it involves the conclusion that there is a perfecting for destruction as well as salvation. No soul goes to heaven till perfected for glory. Even so no one goes to hell till perfected for damnation. The potter never gives up the vessel while there is hope. God is the Omnipotent. Hence He works on every vessel so long as there is hope. When the human will so contravenes the divine will as to disqualify Omnipotent grace to make you a vessel to honor, then you are perfected for destruction. God is Omniscient. He sees you will never let Him save you. Consequently He lets you drop into hell. There is no other place for you. He has made heaven for you, but you will not let Him love you, consequently you are a vessel unto dishonor perfected for damnation, i. e., ripe for hell.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What if [With these words Paul introduces his real answer to the question asked in verse 19. The full idea runs thus: "I have answered your impudent question by an assertion of the absolute right of God, which you can not deny ( Pro_26:5 ; Psa_18:26 ). But what will you say if, etc." If the absolute abstract right of God puts man to silence, how much more must he be silent before the actual, applied mercy and grace of God which forbears to use the right because of his longsuffering pity toward the impenitent, and his forgiving leniency toward the repentant. Paul asserts the absolute right of God, but denies that he applies it. Herein he differs from Calvinism, which insists that he applies it] God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction [And now, O man, how silent must you be if it appears that God, although willing to show his displeasure against wickedness, and ready to show his power to crush its designs, nevertheless endured with much longsuffering evil men whose conduct had already fitted them for, or made them worthy of, destruction. Paul has already told us that the longsuffering of God is exercised to induce repentance, though its abuse may incidentally increase both wrath and punishment ( Rom_2:4-11 ). It is not affirmed that God "fitted" these evil ones for destruction. "And," says Barnes, "there is an evident design in not affirming it, and a distinction made between them and the vessels of mercy which ought to be regarded. In relation to the latter it is expressly affirmed that God fitted or prepared them for glory. (See Rom_9:23 ) 'Which HE had afore prepared unto glory.' The same distinction is remarkably striking in the account of the last judgment in Mat_25:34-41 . To the righteous, Christ will say, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU,' etc. To the wicked, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS;' not said to have been originally prepared for them. It is clear, therefore, that God intends to keep the great truth in view, that he prepares his people by direct agency for heaven; but that he exerts no such agency in preparing the wicked for destruction." No potter, either divine or human, ever made vessels just to destroy them. But any potter, finding a vessel suited to a dishonorable use, may so use it, and may afterwards destroy it. How the Jews "fitted" themselves for destruction is told elsewhere by the apostle-- 1Th_2:15-16 ]:

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. What if God. Now if God, in the exercise of his undoubted right, has done something like this, in his dealings with the Jew and Gentile. Willing to show his wrath. Though provoked to visit punishment on the Jewish nation for its sin in rejecting Christ, and thus to demonstrate his power, yet thus far he has endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath. The unbelieving Jewish nation, so sinful before God, yet long endured, is meant. God, in the exercise of his sovereign will, has thus far deferred the exhibition of his wrath in its destruction. This verse began with a question. It implies, If God does all this, where is the fault?

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

he ... his

The words "he" and "his" here refer to God.

containers of wrath ... containers of mercy

Paul speaks of people as if they were containers. AT: "people who deserve wrath ... people who deserve mercy" (See: Metaphor)

the riches of his glory upon

Paul compares God's wonderful actions here to great "riches." AT: "his glory, which is of great value, upon" (See: Metaphor)

which he had previously prepared for glory

Here "glory" refers to life in heaven with God. AT: "whom he prepared ahead of time in order that they might live with him" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

also for us

The word "us" here refers to Paul and fellow believers. (See: Inclusive "We")

called

Here "called" means God has appointed or chosen people to be his children, to be his servants and proclaimers of his message of salvation through Jesus.

translationWords

wrath

endure

glory

call

Jew

Gentile

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

22. εἰ δὲ.… No apodosis follows: the current is broken by the introduction of prophetic passages Rom 9:25 f. What apodosis was intended? The thought passes from the abstract relation of Creator to created to GOD’S actual government of men, as seen in His dealings with those who oppose and those who obey His Will: the principles of government are declared in the words ἤνεγκεν and προητοίμασεν, the attitude in π. μακροθυμία, the end in the revelation of GOD’S power and character, whether by wrath or mercy. The apodosis required, then, is some such appeal as ‘what fault can we find here?’ It should be remembered that the revelation of wrath is just as necessary for the moral education of man as the revelation of mercy. They are in fact the two sides of the shield.

θέλων = in willing, or while willing: the clear exhibition of wrath is one side of GOD’S revelation to man, and is given in the fact and consequences of sin; cf. Rom 1:18 f. The wrath of GOD towards sin is as true an outcome of His loving purpose for man, as is His pleasure in righteousness. The participle describes not the reason (because) nor a contrast (although), but the general condition under which the action of the main verb takes place.

ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν exactly |[188] Rom 1:18 = to give an instance of …; cf. Rom 3:25; 2Th 1:5; 1Ti 1:16.

[188] | parallel to

γνωρίσαι τὀ δυνατὸν αὐ. γνωρίσαι = to bring to the knowledge of men. τὸ δυνατὸν, His power seen in combating sin no less than in effecting righteousness.

ἤνεγκεν σκεύη ὀργῆς. Jeremiah 50 (27):25; Isa 13:5 (Heb.), but in both these passages the meaning is ‘brought out weapons by which to inflict His purpose of wrath.’ Here = ‘bore with … instruments of wrath’; cf. Rom 2:4, Rom 3:25-26; 2Pe 3:9; 2Pe 3:15 (Mayor cf[189] 1Pe 3:20; Psa 86:15; Isa 30:18 alibi). Cf. Exo 34:6.

[189] confert

σκεύη ὀργῆς. Instruments whose only use now is for the wrath of GOD. The image of the preceding verse is continued but the form is changed (ὀργῆς not εἰς ὀργήν) = not ‘destined for wrath’ but fit only to exhibit or effect wrath (cf. S. H.). They have become so fit, by their own neglect of what they could know of GOD (cf. Rom 1:18 f.). So

κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν marks that their present state is the result of a course of preparation, and this must be found (again in accordance with Rom 1:18 f.) in their own conduct. Cf. Luk 6:40; 1Co 1:10; Eph 4:12 (-μός). ἀπώλειαν )[191] σωτηρίαν, cf. Rom 1:32; Mat 7:13; Php 3:19; 1Ti 6:9.

[191] )( opposed to

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22.] But what if (by the elliptical εἰ δέ the answer to the question of the objector, ver. 19, seems to be introduced; ἐὰν οὖν occurs in a similar connexion Joh 6:62; and ἀλλʼ εἰ, Soph. Œd. Col. 590,—ἀλλʼ εἰ θέλοντάς γʼ οὐδὲ σοὶ φυγεῖν καλόν; See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 212. 6) (1) God, purposing to shew forth His wrath, and to make known His power (that which He could do), endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted [prepared, made complete and ready] for destruction; and (what if this took place) (2) that He might make known the riches of His glory on (not to, as De Wette, who joins it with γνωρίσῃ,—but ‘toward,’ on, ‘with regard to,’ dependent on πλοῦτον, as πλουτῶν εἰς, ch. 10:12) the vessels of mercy, which He before prepared for glory? I have given the whole, that my view of the construction might be evident: viz. that (1) and (2) are parallel clauses, both dependent on εἰ δέ; θέλων giving the purpose of the 1st, and ἵνα γν. that of the 2nd. They might be cast into one form by writing the 1st ὁ θ., ἵνα ἐνδείξηται.… κ. γνωρίσῃ,—or the 2nd, καὶ θέλων γνωρίσαι. Only I do not, as Calv., Beza, Grot., Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, and Winer, understand the same ἤνεγκεν.… ἀπώλ., as belonging to both, but only to the 1st, and supply before the 2nd, ‘What if this took place,’ viz. this ὃν θέλει, ἐλεεῖ. Other constructions have been,—to make ἵνα depend on κατηρτισμένα—‘prepared to destruction for this very purpose, that &c.’ So Fritz. and Rückert, Exo_2; but this seems to overlook καί, or to regard it as = καὶ τοῦτο:—to take ver. 23 as a new sentence, supplying ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς, as Tholuck.

Stuart supplies θέλων before ἵνα γν., and ἠλέησεν before οὓς ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς. This in fact amounts to nearly the same as my own view, but appears objectionable, inasmuch as it joins ver. 24 to ver. 23: see below.

The argument is, ‘What if God, in the case of the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, has, in willing to manifest His power and wrath, also exhibited towards them long-suffering (to lead them to repentance, ch. 2:4,—a mystery which we cannot fathom), and in having mercy on the vessels of mercy prepared for glory, has also made manifest the riches of His glory?’ Then in both these dispensations will appear, not the arbitrary power, but the rich goodness of God.

The theological difficulties in κατηρτισμένα and προητοίμασεν (in both cases God is the agent; not they themselves, as Chrys., Theophyl., Olsh. Bengel, however, rightly remarks, “non dicit quæ προκατήρτισε, cum tamen ver. seq. dicat ‘quæ præparavit.’ Cf. Mat 25:34 cum ver. 41, et Act 13:46 cum ver. 48”) are but such as have occurred repeatedly before, and, as Stuart has well observed, are inherent, not in the Apostle’s argument, nor even in revelation, but in any consistent belief of an omnipotent and omniscient God. See remarks on ver. 18.

σκεύη ὀργῆς and σκεύη ἐλέους are vessels prepared to subserve, as it were to hold, His ὀργή and ἔλεος: hardly, as Calvin, instruments to shew forth: that is done, over and above their being σκεύη, but is not necessary to it.

The σκ. ὀργ. and σκ. ἐλ. are not to be, with a view to evade the general application, confined to the instances of Pharaoh and the Jews: these instances give occasion to the argument, but the argument itself is general, extending to all the dealings of God.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ Θεός, κ.τ.λ.: ‘but if God, &c., what will you say then?’ like our English idiom ‘What and if.’ There is no apodosis to the sentence, but the construction, although grammatically incomplete, is by no means unusual: cf. Joh 6:61-62 τοῦτο ὑμᾶς σκανδαλίζεὶ ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱόν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον; Act 23:9 οὐδὲν κακὸν εὑρίσκομεν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ· εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελοσ; Luk 19:41, Luk 19:42 καὶ ὡς ἤγγυτεν, ἰδὼν τὴν πόλιν ἔκλαυσεν ἐπʼ αὐτῇ λέγων ὅτι Εἰ ἔγνως ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ καὶ σὺ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην. There is no difficulty (as Oltramare seems to think) in the length of the sentence. All other constructions, such as an attempt to find an apodosis in καὶ ἴνα γνωρίσῃ in οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν, or even in ver. 31 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, are needlessly harsh and unreal.

The δέ (which differs from οὖν: cf. Joh 6:62; Act 23:9), although not introducing a strong opposition to the previous sentence, implies a change of thought. Enough has been said to preserve the independence of the Divine will, and St. Paul suggests another aspect of the question, which will be expounded more fully later;—one not in any way opposed to the freedom of the Divine action, but showing as a matter of fact how this freedom has been exhibited. ‘But if God, notwithstanding His Divine sovereignty, has in His actual dealings with mankind shown such unexpected mercy, what becomes of your complaints of injustice?’

θέλων. There has been much discussion as to whether this should be translated ‘because God wishes,’ or ‘although God wishes.’ (1) In the former case (so de W. and most commentators) the words mean, ‘God because He wishes to show the terrible character of His wrath restrains His hands, until, as in the case of Pharaoh, He exhibits His power by a terrible overthrow. He hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order that the judgement might be more terrible.’ (2) In the latter case (Mey.-W. Go. Lips. Gif.), ‘God, although His righteous anger might naturally lead to His making His power known, has through His kindness delayed and borne with those who had become objects that deserved His wrath.’ That this is correct is shown by the words ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ, which are quite inconsistent with the former interpretation, and by the similar passage Rom 2:4, where it is distinctly stated τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς μετάνοιάν σε ἄγει. Even if St. Paul occasionally contradicts himself, that is no reason for making him do so unnecessarily. As Liddon says the three points added in this sentence, the natural wrath of God against sin and the violation of His law, the fact that the objects of His compassion were σκεύη ὀργῆς, and that they were fitted for destruction, all intensify the difficulty of the Divine restraint.

ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ are reminiscences of the language used in the case of Pharaoh, ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου.

σκεύη ὀργῆς: ‘vessels which deserve God’s anger’; the image of the previous verse is continued. The translation ‘destined for God’s anger’ would require σκεύη εἰς ὀργήν: and the change of construction from the previous verse must be intentional.

κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν: ‘prepared for destruction.’ The construction is purposely different from that of the corresponding words ἅ προητοίμασεν. St. Paul does not say ‘whom God prepared for destruction’ (Mey.), although in a sense at any rate he could have done so (ver. 18 and 1:24, &c.), for that would conflict with the argument of the sentence; nor does he say that they had fitted themselves for destruction (Chrys. Theoph. Oecum. Grotius Beng.), although, as the argument in chap. 10 shows, he could have done so, for this would have been to impair the conception of God’s freedom of action which at present he wishes to emphasize; but he says just what is necessary for his immediate purpose—they were fitted for eternal destruction (ἀπώλεια opp. to σωτηρία). That is the point to which he wishes to attract our attention.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Willing [θελων] . Although willing, not because. Referring not to the determinate purpose of God, but to His spontaneous will growing out of His holy character. In the former sense, the meaning would be that God 's long - suffering was designed to enhance the final penalty. The emphatic position of willing prepares the way for the contrast with long - suffering. Though this holy will would lead Him to show His wrath, yet He withheld His wrath and endured.

Vessels of wrath [σκευη οργης] . Not filled with wrath, nor prepared to serve for a manifestation of divine wrath; but appertaining to wrath. Such as by their own acts have fallen under His wrath. Compare Psa 2:9. Fitted [κατηρτισμενα] . Lit., adjusted. See on mending, Mt 4:21; perfect, Mt 21:16; Luk 6:40; 1Pe 5:10. Not fitted by God for destruction, but in an adjectival sense, ready, ripe for destruction, the participle denoting a present state previously formed, but giving no hint of how it has been formed. An agency of some kind must be assumed. That the objects of final wrath had themselves a hand in the matter may be seen from 1Th 2:15, 16. That the hand of God is also operative may be inferred from the whole drift of the chapter. "The apostle has probably chosen this form because the being ready certainly arises from a continual reciprocal action between human sin and the divine judgment of blindness and hardness. Every development of sin is a net - work of human offenses and divine judgments"

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.