• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

An orthodox interpretation of Romans 9

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was reading online on ccel.org (a protestant page) and I looked up St John Chrysostom's commentary on Romans Chapter 9, here is the link:
http://ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-80.htm#P2734_2607891
He is a respected saint by many and I thought he had some good stuff to say, here are some of the good parts but you should read the whole page.

Ver. 20, 2l. "Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter (Read Jer. xviii. 1-10) power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which followeth the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, "He couched, he lay down as a lion;" (Numb. xxiv. 9) let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion. And again, when He says, "I will meet them as a bereaved bear" (Hos. xiii. 8), let us take the vindictiveness. And when he says, "our God is a consuming fire" (Deut. iv. 24; and Heb. xii. 29), the wasting power exerted in punishing. So also here must we single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when he does go on to say, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, divers incongruities will follow for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice. There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever. For as the potter (he says) of the same lump makes what he pleaseth, and no one forbids it; thus also when God, of the same race of men, punisheth some, and honoreth others, be not thou curious nor meddlesome herein, but worship only, and imitate the clay. And as it followeth the hands of the potter, so do thou also the mind of Him that so ordereth things. For He worketh nothing at random, or mere hazard, though thou be ignorant of the secret of His Wisdom. Yet thou allowest the other of the same lump to make divers things, and findest no fault: but of Him you demand an account of His punishments and honors, and will not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is not so; but since the same21 lump is of the same substance, you assert that there are the same dispositions. And, how monstrous this is! And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice. Still, as I said before, one must take this illustration to have one bearing only, which is that one should not contravene God, but yield to His incomprehensible Wisdom. For the examples ought to be greater than the subject, and than the things on account of which they are brought forward, so as to draw on the hearer better. Since if they were not greater and did not mount far above it, he could not attack as he ought, and shame the objectors. However, their ill-timed obstinacy he silenced in this way with becoming superiority. And then he introduces his answer. Now what is the answer?

Ver. 22, 23, 24. "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, whom He hath chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath of God. For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calleth him not only "a vessel of wrath," but also one "fitted for destruction." That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self.22 For neither had God left out aught of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out aught of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew this, "He endured him with much long-suffering," being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath, He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power. For that it is not God's wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul does not wish to appear powerful in this way ("not that we should appear approved," he says, "but that ye should do that which is honest,") (2 Cor. xiii. 7), much less doth God. But after that be had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins but repented, He manifested His love toward man. But it does not say, love towards man, but glory, to show that this is especially God's glory, and for this He was above all things earnest. But in saying, "which He had afore prepared unto glory," he does not mean that all is God's doing. Since if this were so, there were nothing to hinder all men from being saved. But he is setting forth again His foreknowledge, and doing away with the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. And on this topic again he grounds a defence of his statement, which is no small one. For it was not in the case of the Jews only that some men perished, and some were saved, but with the Gentiles also this was the case. Wherefore he does not say, all the Gentiles, but, "of the Gentiles," nor, all the Jews, but, "of the Jews." As then Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey. For though the more part is of God, still they also have contributed themselves some little. Whence he does not say either, vessels of well-doing, or vessels of boldness (parrhsiaj), but "vessels of mercy," to show that the whole is of God. For the phrase, "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth," even if it comes in the course of the objection, still, were it said by Paul, would create no difficulty, Because when he says, "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth," he does not deprive us of free-will, but shows that all is not one's own, for that it requires grace from above. For it is binding on us to will, and also to run: but to confide not in our own labors, but in the love of God toward man. And this he has expressed elsewhere. "Yet not I, but the grace which was with me." (1 Cor. xv. 10.), And he well says, "Which He had afore prepared unto glory." For since they reproached them with this, that they were saved by grace, and thought to make them ashamed, he far more than sets aside this insinuation. For if the thing brought glory even to God, much more to them through whom God was glorified. But observe his forbearance, and unspeakable wisdom. For when he had it in his power to adduce, as an instance of those punished, not Pharaoh, but such of the Jews as had sinned, and so make his discourse much clearer, and show that where there were the same fathers, and the same sins, some perished, and some had mercy shown them, and persuade them not to be doubtful-minded, even if some of the Gentiles were saved, while the Jews were perishing; that he might not make his discourse irksome, the showing forth of the punishment he draws from the foreigner, so that he may not be forced to call them "vessels of wrath." But those that obtained mercy he draws from the people of the Jews. And besides, he also has spoken in a sufficient way in God's behalf, because though He knew very well that the nation was fitting itself as a vessel of destruction, still He contributed all on His part, His patience, His long-suffering, and that not merely long-suffering, but "much long-suffering;" yet still he was not minded to state it barely against the Jews. Whence then are some vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerneth God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved. Having then given to the question that answer which was furnished by facts, in order to give his discourse the advantage of other testimony in its favor, he introduces the prophets also making the same declarations aforetime. For Hosea, he says, of old put this in writing, as follows:

 

Espada

Iēsous Christos Theou Huios Sōtēr
Nov 23, 2005
686
25
51
Buckinghamshire, England
✟23,454.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Hmmm, I am not at all convinced, he seems to ignore that Paul teaches predestination a few paragraphs before in chapter 8. Strange considering that the orthodox church accepted predestination at the council of Orange (6th century), it wasn't until the reformation that the Orthodox church changed its mind.

It was actually the Augustine view of double predestination that they accepted. It really appears that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were trying to put ground between themselves and Calvin.

As for silence enforced upon us, look at the Psalms E.g Psa 74. Where David allows God to know his displeasure.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Considering how much more water has gone under the bridge of Christian thought in the centuries since this wise old man wrote this it all seems rather unremarkable reading these days.

When I first read this in sem years ago I thought it was a bit flat and generalised, clearly directed to the laity, and now I think it rather "obvious" and thus while it is ok it isn't exactly enlightening to the more recent thoughts on the matter. It's kind of a "given" to some positions. It does, however, bring some objective, simple light to the sadly bi-partisan discussions on election and predestination on this forum.

Thanks for posting it Catholic Dude.
 
Upvote 0
Theophorus said:
I have read this along time ago. St. John Chrysostom brings sanity to the scriptures.

There is an account of how he interpreted Paul's writings, but It would not be appreciated here.
I agree, he did the world a favor with his writings.

As for the account of how he interpreted, I would be interested to read it.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 10, 2004
6,609
414
Kansas City area
✟31,271.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Catholic Dude said:
I agree, he did the world a favor with his writings.

As for the account of how he interpreted, I would be interested to read it.


When St. John was a monastic, another monk would come to his cell to notify him of a prominent visitor, but would see St. John writing with intensity and an older gentleman standing behind him to his right, speaking into St. John's ear. So he would leave St. John undisturbed. I believed this happened three nights in a row. When St. John emerged and found out he had not been notified of the visitor, he inquired why. The other monk explained what he saw, at which St. John said he had no visitor. It turned out that St. John was working on his commentary of Paul's writings, and the visitor was Paul himself.

After St. John Chrysostom's death, his right ear and right hand remained uncorrupted.
 
Upvote 0
Theophorus said:
When St. John was a monastic, another monk would come to his cell to notify him of a prominent visitor, but would see St. John writing with intensity and an older gentleman standing behind him to his right, speaking into St. John's ear. So he would leave St. John undisturbed. I believed this happened three nights in a row. When St. John emerged and found out he had not been notified of the visitor, he inquired why. The other monk explained what he saw, at which St. John said he had no visitor. It turned out that St. John was working on his commentary of Paul's writings, and the visitor was Paul himself.

After St. John Chrysostom's death, his right ear and right hand remained uncorrupted.
As a Catholic I do believe there is such a thing as "visitations" and visions like that and that there are incorrupable things from the saints.

One of the sad things about protestantism is the Saints were forgotten.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 10, 2004
6,609
414
Kansas City area
✟31,271.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Catholic Dude said:
As a Catholic I do believe there is such a thing as "visitations" and visions like that and that there are incorrupable things from the saints.

One of the sad things about protestantism is the Saints were forgotten.

Yes, for me Saints are the true manifestation of Christ's Church. In our liturgy the priest censes the icons, the members of the Church triumphant, then he censes us, the Church militant. All believers, past and present are icons/images of Christ.
It is a powerful statement of the unity of believers and the triumph of Christ and his followers over death, and the hope that is in us all.
 
Upvote 0

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
65
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Strange considering that the orthodox church accepted predestination at the council of Orange (6th century), it wasn't until the reformation that the Orthodox church changed its mind.

I'll have to ask for a cite that we have changed our theology, especially in response to a Western squabble that does not concern us.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Catholic Dude said:
One of the sad things about protestantism is the Saints were forgotten.

I don't think that's a fair thing to say. They just aren't venerated to the extent that the medieval churches do. If you walk into a "protestant" bookstore these days you'll see plenty of liturature dedicated to and enshrining the thoughts of the saints, in particular the earliest "fathers". Don't forget the biggest selling collection of Patristic writings in shops today is put out by Protestants, and translated by them too. (The Eerdmans set)

Also, it might be worth mentioning the irony that "protestants" have their own set of saints too.
 
Upvote 0

Espada

Iēsous Christos Theou Huios Sōtēr
Nov 23, 2005
686
25
51
Buckinghamshire, England
✟23,454.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Oblio said:
I'll have to ask for a cite that we have changed our theology, especially in response to a Western squabble that does not concern us.

Very well Encyclopedia of Religion Vol 5 p3208.

Among Eastern Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox Confession (1643) and the Confession of Jerusalem (1673) responded to the Lutherans, Calvinists and Trent by reaffirming the pre-Augustinian belief that God predestines some to glory and others to condemnation solely because "he foreknew the one would make a right use of their free will and the other a wrong."

Quite a difference to the Council of Orange (529) which gave Augustine's view of predestination, the status of orthadoxy.
 
Upvote 0

cathromang

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
426
34
✟15,736.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Politics
US-Others
Theophorus said:
When St. John was a monastic, another monk would come to his cell to notify him of a prominent visitor, but would see St. John writing with intensity and an older gentleman standing behind him to his right, speaking into St. John's ear. So he would leave St. John undisturbed. I believed this happened three nights in a row. When St. John emerged and found out he had not been notified of the visitor, he inquired why. The other monk explained what he saw, at which St. John said he had no visitor. It turned out that St. John was working on his commentary of Paul's writings, and the visitor was Paul himself.

After St. John Chrysostom's death, his right ear and right hand remained uncorrupted.

When I was shown the prison of Paul in Rome on one of the far walls is a profile/indentation of a man's face in the stone. Legend has it that Paul was in great prayer and a guard knocked him against the wall in the midst of his prayer and the Spirit was so great within him his face made an impression in the stone. It's a pretty awesome and humbling thing to see...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.