Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans

File 262 December 15, 2014

Gods Right Defended

Romans 9.19-23

19. Now you will object, In that case, why does He still hold wicked people
accountable? For no one has ever done anything other than what God has willed him to
do.
20. Stop right there you feeble human, who do you think you are to answer back to God?
The thing that is molded will not to say to the one who molds it, Why did you make me
like this, will it?
21. Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, to choose to make from the same
lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for unclean and dishonorable use?
22. Now what is it to you if God very patiently bore along vessels destined for wrath,
which have been prepared for destruction, because He desired to demonstrate His wrath
and make known His power?
23. And if He did so in order to ultimately make known the riches of His glory on vessels
destined for mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory?
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

Central Idea
The reason God can yet hold an individual responsible for his/her wickedness,
despite Gods having ordained such a path, is His absolute authority as the Creator of
mankind.

Exegetical Outline

I. The reason Paul anticipates an objection is the inevitable implications drawn

from the previous verses. 19
A. The erroneous inference from Pauls earlier statements is that God has no
right to hold an individual responsible for their sinful path. 19a
B. The cause for such a claim is that every individual has only done exactly
what God has willed him/her to do. 19b
II. The reason such actions of Gods should not/cannot be questioned is that God
holds absolute authority as Creator. 20-21
A. The adversative introduces a triple emphatic response by Paul that man
does not get to answer rebelliously to God. 20a
B. The explanatory comparison is that no created object has the right or
opportunity to question its creator. 20b
C. The explanatory adversative is that a potter most definitely has
unquestioned authority over the clay he works with. 21
III. The cause for Gods alternating dealings with man is His desire to reveal
Himself. 22-23
A. The means God uses to reveal Himself is patiently moving along vessels
destined for His wrath, having been prepared for destruction. 22b
B. The object of His revelation is His wrath, and His power. 22a
C. Gods purpose in revealing His wrath and power is to make known the
wealth of His glory upon vessels that He purposed for glory. 23
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

VERSE BY VERSE COMMENTARY ON ROM 9.19-

23

Gods Rights Defended (9.19-23)

In chapter 9, Paul has begun to make his case that just because not all of Israel is

saved, it does not mean that Gods promises have failed. To prove his point, he shows that

it was never Gods intent for all of Abrahams descendents, or even all of Isaacs

descendents to be His chosen people. Thus, why would every descendent of Israel

(Jacob?) be saved? Paul explains that this is by Gods sovereign election, and that such

election/predestination is based not on the actions of mankind, but on Gods desires. Paul

iterates that it is God who shows mercy on whomever He desires, and hardens whomever

He desires, as seen in the lives of Pharaoh, Jacob, and Esau. Paul draws it all the way out

to a claim that it isnt even up to man to desire to be good, or to work to do so, but God

alone decides for each individual. Pauls claim that God shows mercy to whomever He

desires, and actively hardens whomever He desires leads directly into a foreseen

objection on the part of a rhetorical antagonist in vs. 19. Pauls answer, as seen below,

gives as much of a defense of Gods actions as He is going to give. In verses 19-23, Paul

works to defend Gods right to act as He has. It is significant that the thrust of his

reasoning is that God is God, Creator and Maker of humankind. Paul nowhere introduces

concepts of twin pillars, attempting to balance Gods sovereignty and human free will.

Instead, he reinforces heavily throughout that God has the authority to make of His

creations whatever He so desires, and for whatever purpose He envisions. More than just

the authority to do so, by using the metaphor that he does (the potter and clay), he alludes
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

that man is so many orders below God that for all intents and purposes, that man is

incapable of evaluating Gods actions. Paul offers no emotional comfort to the reader

other than to point again to Gods central place in the outworkings of Creation.

I. Objection (19)

Paul, clearly recognizing what his readers would most likely think upon hearing the

doctrine of election which he has just explained, gives voice to their doubts. In essence,

the objection is that if Paul is right, and God shows mercy and hardens whomever He

desires, irrespective of an individuals own desire and exertion, then how can God still

judge anyone, when theyve only lived the life that He has ordained for them? This

objection is not often given the significance that it ought to be given. Too often,

interpreters attempt to soften the predetermining act of God as presented in verses 14-18,

apparently ignoring the fact that the rhetorical objection that Paul raises in vs. 19 only

makes sense if 14-18 is interpreted as presenting a clear doctrine of election, even double

predestination. Of course, the question itself doesnt prove it, as Paul may have gone on

to refute the objection, or add deeper nuance to his explanation. This would be the perfect

time for Paul to speak of double causality, explaining that God only hardens people who

were already hardening themselves, or even that God only hardens people that He knew

would never give their lives to Him. This is why it is so incredibly significant that Paul

doesnt do so. He lets the objection stand, thus expressing that the speaker of the

objection has understood Pauls premise correctly, but in the next verse shows that the

speaker has drawn an erroneous conclusion from that premise.

Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

A. What gives God the right? (19a)

Paul raises a rhetorical objection to his own doctrine of election and double

predestination; why then does God still find fault? The imagined speaker, as mentioned

above, is drawing the inference (marked by : see Appendix: TC Problem #1) that God

is unjust to judge man, from Pauls argument from 6-18.

B. Because Everyone is What He Made Them (19b)

In case the connection between the objection and Pauls reasoning in previous verses

was unclear, Paul clarifies the issue in the second half of verse 19. He makes it clear that

the speaker of the objection has rightly understood that no one has resisted the will of

God in that what God has willed for each person, whether mercy, or hardening,

inevitably comes about. In essence, Paul has used the very words of the rhetorical

objection to further clarify his doctrine of double predestination, while also affording

himself the opportunity to answer such an objection in the next verse.

It should be noted that some have attempted to say that the question itself reveals that

some do resist Gods will (see Schreiner, 514 for proponents and his own answer), and

thus God is just in condemning such people. In this view, the very fact that God is

questioned is an expression of resistance. Ultimately, such a stance completely fails to

grasp the flow of Pauls argument. Paul has made his case that hardened sinners (like

Pharaoh), are hardened sinners because God hardened them for His own purposes. This is

why the objection is raised in the first place. If the question itself is a consequence of a

hardened heart, then it is God who hardened that heart. Too often, interpreters fall back

on a shared responsibility (God hardening those who are hardening themselves), or a

response of God to man (people hardened themselves, so God further hardened them),
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

and are unwilling to consider that the reality is a response of man to God (people act with

hard hearts because God chose to harden those hearts). Does this make God unjust? That

is, at the center, the question the objection raises, and Paul answers.

II. God as Absolute Authority (20-21)

In verses 20-21, Paul begins to respond to the rhetorical objection, quoting and

alluding to a number of OT texts, and other Jewish literature. Some interpreters have

complained that Paul doesnt ever actually give an answer to the objection, but again,

such a view fails to grasp Pauls thoughts on Gods sovereignty, election, and

responsibility of mankind.

A. Man Is In No Place to Question (20a)

Paul begins his response with the strong adversative , (on the contrary,

indeed), and a number of stylistic emphases. The adversative takes the logic of the

argument back a step, thus in a sense, not answering the objection. It is as if Paul has

said, hold on, back up a little. He then addresses the heart of the issue.

First, Paul moves oh man to the front of the sentence, giving it a place of emphasis

(see Appendix: TC Problem #2). He then unnecessarily includes the 2nd person pronoun,

adding more emphasis, then moves that pronoun forward in its clause to add a touch

more. So, what is Paul emphasizing? The answer is found in his final point of emphasis,

when he places God at the end of the sentence. Thus the entire structure is designed to

contrast the feebleness of man and the absoluteness of God. As Moo points out, oh man

doesnt always carry a derogatory sense, but in the present context, due to the emphasis

of the sentence and the flow of Pauls argument, it is very unlikely that it could mean
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

anything else. When Paul asks, who are you, oh human, to answer back to God? the

readers mind likely jumps back to Gods calling to account of Job (Job 38).

B. Comparison to Creation and Creator (20b)

In support of Pauls own strongly challenging question, he offers a comparison

meant to recall OT theology for the reader and prove by metaphor the gulf that exists

between God and man. The imagery is a partial quote of Isaiah 29.16 from the LXX,

likely alluding to Isa 45.9 as well (see Appendix: Validation #1 for a fuller discussion of

references). It is significant that Paul uses the term , which is specifically

Creator language in OT literature.

C. Comparison to Potter and Clay (21)

Paul carries his comparison a step further, narrowing the imagery down from a

made thing and its maker to a potter and his clay. Again, by doing so, Paul is

recalling many a reference in Jewish literature, which oftentimes was used to explain

Gods absolute right to create whatever He wants with whatever material He wants.

Many interpreters want to downplay the salvific ramifications on individuals in this

passage. One of the numerous points they make is that oftentimes, the potter language

used in Jewish literature speaks of national movement. These interpreters argue that this

illustration helps to show that Paul is making the case that God has the right to do

whatever He desires with nations in order to further the movement of salvation in

salvation-history. Shreiner argues against this view, pointing to the overall argument of

the chapter, the likelihood that Paul is alluding to Sirach 33.7-13, and the overall

argument of Rom. 9-11 concerning salvation.

Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

From the same lump could either be speaking of Israel itself, since in the

immediately preceding verses Paul was arguing that not all of Israel is Israel, or of

mankind in general, as it appears that Paul has backed out the lens and is speaking in

general terms of all of mankind. When Paul says the potter can make some vessels for

honorable use and some for dishonorable, interpreters start reaching for more

excuses. This is where the reminder is often brought up not to make carry a metaphor too

far. They make the point that no potter creates pots that are intended for destruction (as

the next verse would seem to extrapolate). They soften the term dishonorable to mean

common and feel theyve reached a balance. I dont think there is ample enough

evidence to soften the term to such a meaning though, primarily because of the allusions

that Paul is making by such language (i.e. a potter making from the same lump some

vessels for clean use and others as idols, Wis 15.7). For a fuller discussion of the

ramifications of this topic, see Appendix: Word Study #1 and Validation #1.

III. Gods Desire to Reveal Himself (22-23)

Having drawn up the metaphor for the vast gulf between man and God, Paul now

describes Gods own activity as a potter-type. Paul introduces this application of the

metaphor with , which Dunn and Cranfield take to be slightly adversative (558, 493),

and thus argue that Paul is signifying that Gods ways are not just like the potters ways.

Their only support is that Paul could have instead used a more clear inferential transition.

In the first place, this makes more of Pauls choice of transition than is necessitated by

the text, and in the second, even if it should be taken as adversative, it does not require

the interpreter to take verses 22-23 in the manner which Dunn and Cranfield choose to

take them (because of the , they divorce the vessels in 22-23 from the vessels of
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

21). The proper way to take 22-23 is as an explanation for Gods acts as a type of potter,

namely, that He desires to make known His wrath, His power, and ultimately the riches of

His glory. For the sake of space, concerning the open-ended protasis of vs. 22, see Dunn,

558)

A. The Means He Uses (22b)

Skipping the first part of verse 22 for now, we see that Paul is expressing Gods work

as a potter upon vessels of wrath. See Appendix: Word Study #2 for an exploration into

the meaning of the word translated endured. My conclusion is that while it could carry

the simple connotation of putting up with an unpleasant person or event, the term

nearly always carries a sense of carrying, moving, or even producing. In light of

the potter-language in the previous verse, it shouldnt be ruled out that Paul may be

saying that God is molding and making (carrying along, making) vessels of wrath, with

the patience of an artist rendering an unpleasant scene. Regardless, Paul is arguing that

God is at least allowing (and quite possible moving along) dishonorable vessels to

continue to exist (and even to prosper according to his earlier quote concerning Pharaoh).

The genitive of wrath could be merely descriptive or attributive, but Wallace

makes valid point in favor of taking it as a genitive of destination (101). He makes the

point that wrath in the Pauline corpus frequently carries an eschatological judgment

idea, particularly in Romans. This trend gives further support to the conclusion that

prepared for destruction means far more than Cranfields ripe for destruction (see

Appendix: Validation #2). As seen in the Appendix, many desire to make a point of the

verb being passive, and thus lessening Gods role in that particular concept, but this
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

vastly ignores the entire point of Pauls rhetorical objection and his illustration of the

potter.

B. The Content of His Revelation (22a)

Back to the beginning of verse 22, there has been much disagreement over whether

to take the participle as concessive, even though, or causal, because. Causal is

to be preferred, based on the flow of the passage that I have argued for. Thus, Paul now

explains Gods purpose in dealing with vessels of wrath in the way that He does. The

statement is formed in the form of a question, an open-ended protasis as seen in Dunn,

and following the strain of the argument could easily be rendered, what would it be to

you oh feeble human, if God, because He wants to display His wrath, and make known

His power, furthers vessels of wrath along their path to destruction?

C. The Purpose of These Revelations (23)

Pauls final words on the matter of the potter, declares with a clear purpose statement

that Gods purpose is to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy that

He has prepared beforehand for glory. While it is not clear at first what idea the purpose

statement should be tied to, it is well argued that it is a statement of ultimate purpose. It is

tempting to see this as a third thing that God desired to reveal, but the purpose

statement gives the clause too much distance from the participle to make that a likely

connection. As Schreiner and Cranfield argue, regardless, the purpose clause explains the

ultimate purpose of Gods bearing with (or bearing along) vessels headed for wrath.

In this final verse, there is a good clue that the entire section has been addressing

salvation and not merely salvation-history. This appears in the final word, , glory,

which is most often used to speak of salvific glory.

Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

Conclusion and Application

What most commentators can agree on in this passage (thanks to the clause in

verse 23), is that against the backdrop of Gods wrath, His mercy shines all the brighter.

Who knows how poor our understanding of Gods goodness, mercy, and glory would be

if it was not set off against His powerful and wrathful judgment? Particularly considering

how poorly we understand His mercy even when it is set against the backdrop of His

wrath.

Other than such an agreement, this passage and its surrounding context are one of the

most controversial passages in, not just the book of Romans, but the entire NT. My

contention is that most interpretations do not give the proper consideration to the

objection, which acts as a key to the text, revealing what Paul wants the reader to think

about what he has written (God predestines some to mercy and others to hardened

rebellion), what not to think concerning what he has written (that God is unjust if He acts

in such a way), and why not to think that way (God is God, man is his feeble creation, and

in light of such a gulf, how amazing it is that God reached down with the sacrifice of His

Son to lift some to glory!).

The applications are to be in awe of how much greater God is than man, to recognize

that I do not get to sit in judgment over Gods decrees. Thank God today for forming you

as a vessel of honor, designed and crafted for glory in heaven. Pray today that God will

include your family and friends in His plan as vessels of mercy and honor, not as vessels

of dishonor and wrath.

Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

APPENDICES
Text Criticism Problem #1: Romans 9:19
Some mss include a second , following the , which follows the first : primary
Alexandrian papyrus P46 (c. 200), and uncial B (IV), along with Western uncial D (VI), F
(IX), and G (IX), vgmss and it. In favor of omitting the second are primary
Alexandrian uncial (IV), minuscule 1739(X), secondary Alexandrian uncial A(V),
minuscule 33(IX), 1881(XIV), the Byz(IX-XVI), uncial (IX/X), vg, and sy.
The oldest in support of the inclusion is P46, along with B and D. Together, their age and
importance is strong evidence. For the omission has and A, but they do not outweigh P46 and B.
Neither is widespread, though with early mss in both the Alexandrian and the Western, the
inclusion is better. The omission has solidarity in the Byz, while the inclusion does in the
Western. The inclusion has support earlier and wider, and is supported by the oldest and best. The
omission gains favor later, but the textual evidence supports the inclusion (A-).
Internally, the omission is shorter. The hardest reading may be the inclusion because of the
near repetition of , or the omission because it presents a more complete thought in the
argument. A scribe may have accidently omitted or included the . It is as possible (as
Schreiner argues, 523) that a scribe would have included one in order to better match
Pauls common use of the phrase (Rom 3.1, 9; 4.1; 6.1, 15; 7.7; 8.31; 9.14, 30;
11.7), as it is that a scribe would have omitted it supposing that it had been accidently
included due to the first use of the word. Scribal tendencies may not lend much support
one way or the other, but it is likely that Paul would have included the , as seen in the
10 instances listed above, so the inclusion is preferred (B).
While the evidence isnt overwhelming in either direction, I prefer the inclusion due
to older and better mss, wider mss support (early on), and Pauls preference for the
phrase. (B+).

Text Criticism Problem #2: Romans 9:20

Some mss change the order from what is found in the NA 28 (reading 3), moving the
before (reading 2), while some drop the altogether (reading 1). In
support of 1: primary Alexandrian P46(c. 200), Western D(VI), F(IX), G(IX), along with
629(XIV) and latt. Two is supported by secondary Alexandrian 33(IX), and Byzantine
K(IX), L(VIII), Byz(IX-XVI), and 2 (VII), D2(IX), (IX/X), P(IX), syrh(616). The 3rd reading
is supported by primary Alexandrian (IV), B(IV) which reads , 1739(X), secondary
Alexandrian A(V), 81(1044), 1506(1320), 1881(XIV), Byzantine pc, and unclassified
630(XII/XIII), Origen1739mg.
Reading 1 has the oldest ms (P46), but the rest of the best mss support reading 3 (, A, B).
Three also has solidarity in the Alexandrian until later dates, while reading 1 has late solidarity in
the Western. Reading 1 is the most widespread by the 6th century, but none are very widespread at
all. The external evidence points to 1 or 3, with a slight leaning towards 1 due to its slight
geographical spread, and the date and character of P 46 with D, F, and G (C-).
The shortest reading is 1, the hardest is 1 for its lack of clear transition from the previous
verse. The only reason for omission would have been unintentional, though the inclusion (in 2 or
3) can be explained as adding a more clear transition. The most important argument against 2 is
that Paul meant to emphasize man at the start, contrasted to God at the end of the clause. Two
is ruled out for its softening of the contrast, and 1 is slightly preferred over 3 for its hardness (C).
I prefer 1 and 3 over 2, and 1 just a little more than 3, due to the earlier and wider spread of
mss, the place of emphasis contrast man and God, and the likelihood that a scribe wanted a more
clear transitional word (C).
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

CLAUSAL LAYOUT
19
[] ;
;
20 , ;
[[]]
;
21
;

22 ... ...
,
.
... ...
...
...
23

;

WORD STUDY #1:

(Rom 9.21)
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

A. In the NT, the noun form () is used seven times in the NT, none of which
are outside Paul. The verb is used seven times as well, five of which
occur outside of Paul (Mk 12.4, parallel with Lk 20.11; Jn 8.49; Ac 5.41; Jas
2.6). In each case, the verb means to dishonor, often involving malignment,
physical abuse, or some sort of shaming. The adjective occurs four times,
two of which are outside Paul, and are the parallel accounts in Matt 13.57 and
Mk 6.4 in which Jesus says a prophet is without honor in his hometown.

B. Elsewhere in Paul, but outside Romans, the noun is used five times (1 Co 11.14;
15.43; 2 Cor 6.8; 11.21; 2 Ti 2.20), the adjective twice (1 Co 5.10; 12.23), and
the verb does not appear. Again the term consistently carries the idea of shame
and translated dishonor. Notable instances of the nouns use are 2 Cor 6.8,
where it appears in a list of opposites, and it is paired up against glory. In the
Timothy passage, some translate the term ordinary; In a large house there are
articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for
special purposes and some for common use. Similarly, the adjective in 1 Cor
12 is sometimes translated less honorable, as it is speaking metaphorically of
believers, presumably less glamorous members of the church.

C. In other Romans passages, Paul uses the noun once, and the verb twice. Rom
1.24 reads Therefore God game them over in the lusts of their hearts to
impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them, while 2.23
reads, You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you
dishonor God? The noun appears in Rom 1.26, For this reason, God gave
them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function
for that which is unnatural. In every use, the connotation is negative.

D. In 9.21, translators split. Some translate the noun dishonor, maintaining the
negative connotation, while others soften the term to ordinary, more akin to
the use in 2 Tim 2. However, nothing in the context suggests this softer
translation, other than the translators desire to avoid suggesting that God
actively designates some individuals as dishonorable sinners. In contrast, the
context seems to tie the term to Esau who was hated by God, Pharaoh who
was hardened by God, and any others whom God may so choose to harden.

Summary of NT usage: In the vast majority of cases, the term clearly denotes shame
and dishonor, (as opposed to honor, [] or even glory). Only in this instance,
2 Tim, and 1 Cor 12 is it ever softened to a more neutral term, and in none of these
occasions is the softening required by context.

Significance for Exegesis in Romans 9:21: Paul is capping off the flow of his argument,
which is designed to express that God is actively shaping some men to respond to Him,
and others to deny him, by comparing God to a potter. In the comparison, the potter is
described as being able to make whatever vessels he so chooses out of the clay. Some
such vessels will be showy, glamorous, and for exalted purposes, while others will be for
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

a bed pan, or some other such unclean and shameful use. If the term only meant
ordinary here, it would not fit the logic of the argument Paul is building. His point is
that it is up to God whether He shapes you to be an honorable vessel, thus giving Him
glory, or a shameful and unclean vessel, thus giving Him glory.

BDAG A state of disrespect, dishonor. Adj being without honor or respect,

dishonored, despised, relatively insignificant.

DBL Dishonor, disgrace, shame

LXGRCANLEX dishonor

IGEL dishonor, disgrace

WORD STUDY #2:

(Rom 9.22)
()

A. Of the 66 uses of the term in 60 verses, 64 of those uses are outside of Paul. In
almost every case, the word is translated bring, bear, carry, or produce,
nearly always with a sense of motion. And his head was brought on a platter
and she brought it to her mother, Matt 14.11. Boats are said to be born along by
the wind, (Acts 27.15, 17). Trees and ministers of the gospel produce fruit (Jn
12.24; 15.2, 4-5, 8, 16) and prophecies are made/born/given from heaven by the
Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1.17, 18, 21). The author of Hebrews uses it in a more obscure
sense. Of the five times the term appears in Hebrews, not once does it carry the
typical bring or carry connotation. Instead, He sustains it (1.3), move on to
maturity (6.1), the death must be/be established (9.16), they could not
bear/endure it (12.20), and bearing/enduring the reproach (13.13).

B. Paul uses the term only one time other than in Romans. In 2 Tim 4.13, Paul
requests that Timothy bring his cloak with him when he comes to visit. So it is
seen that Paul uses the term in its most common sense.

C. That leaves Romans 9.22. What if God, because He desired to show His wrath
and make His power known, with much patience vessels of wrath
prepared for destruction? The phrase with much patience seems to favor the
rendering endured, though in the context of the argument, it does remain
possible that God is seen as patiently producing or carrying along vessels of
wrath for their appointed destruction, which is what the term normally means.

Summary of NT usage: The NT consistently and overwhelmingly uses the term to

speak of the carrying of a burden or object in motion, and sometimes as a creation or
production of a thing or event. Only very rarely (a few times in Hebrews and other
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

classical Greek works) is the term used to speak of enduring or putting up with a
command, person or hardship.

Significance for Exegesis in Romans 9.22: In the context of the passage, (God as
potter), it may be that the very common causative movement sense of the term is in
view. God would thus be patiently bringing along/producing vessels of wrath for their
appointed destruction in order to show His power all the better. The patience clause,
Hebrew, and some classics may suggest that Paul was saying that God put up with
beings that Hed rather destroy, but as shown above, the idea of movement is far more
common to the term . Either way, the idea remains, that God postpones His
wrath, allowing vessels to continue along their way by His patient endurance or quite
possibly even by His patient producing.

BDAG: To bear or carry from one place to another. To cause an entity to move from one
position to another. To cause to follow a certain course in direction or conduct. Etc To
hold out in the face of difficulty, bear patiently. To be productive, produce.

LXGRCANLEX: Carry, bear, bring, move, endure, establish, lead, put.

IGEL: Bear or carry; bear along, implying motion; endure, suffer (such phrases are
constructed mostly with accusativessometimes datives [in our passage, much
patience is dative]).

Validation #1

Romans 9.20

There has been a lot of disagreement over what exactly Paul was communicating
through his comparison of God to the potter and over how far to carry that comparison.
Many have warned against seeing the comparison in too many respects, going all the way
back to Chrysostom (as Cranfield, 491). While such a caution is more than warranted, the
high subjectivity of such interpretation far too often results in each interpreter applying
the comparison to the details that support their own theology, and disqualifying the
details that dont. The flow and context of Pauls argument and the Old Testament
passages that he seems most likely to be hearkening back to should be deciding factors
(along with the extensive use of potter terminology in extra-biblical second-temple
literature that Paul would have been familiar with, some of which would have been in his
Septuagint).
As Cranfield points out (491), the beginning of the phrase in 20 (the thing molded
will not say to the one who molded it) matches Isaiah 29.16 perfectly, though the
latter half (why have you made me this way?) diverges slightly, calling to mind Isa 29,
Wis 12.12, and particularly Isa 45.9-11. As Paul proceeds in his argument into vs. 21, it
seems that he begins to clearly allude to Wis 15.7, which speaks of a literal potter
choosing to make differing vessels from the same lump of clay. Cranfield recognizes this
fact, but stops short before having to admit the implications of that connection, and
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

concludes that Pauls purpose is that God must be acknowledged to be free... (with)
ultimate authority- to appoint men to various functions in the on-going course of
salvation-history for the sake of the fulfillment of His over-all purpose. He clarifies that
it cannot be emphasized too strongly that...there is not the slightest suggestion
that...what Paul wanted to assert was a freedom of the Creator to deal with His creatures
according to some indeterminate, capricious, absolute will. In the footnote, he adds that
the idea of the potter doing whatever he likes gives a strong impression of arbitrary
power, which is not warranted by the text (492).
Others argue more from the immediate context than does Cranfield, and eventually
conclude that Pauls point is exactly that. God can and does make whatever He wishes of
people. It should not be labeled arbitrary or capricious, because it is the freedom of a
Being who is innumerable orders above His creations. In this case, the objection raised is
how can God hold man accountable for sin when it is God who set him upon that path?
and Paul does not stop the objection and explain any sort of double causality, or a balance
between Gods sovereign will and mans free will. Instead, Paul in essence would be seen
to declare, you are right about a man, his sin, and God setting him on that path, but you
are wrong to question His right to do such a thing and still hold you accountable for it, for
He is the great God and Creator, you are a mere man, like a lifeless clay vessel in the
hands of a potter, you cannot begin to fathom His ways.
I prefer this second view. It seems that Cranfield was vainly attempting to avoid
making God sound too stern. Paul though had no such qualms. The reminiscent language
in Isaiah 29.16; 45.9-11 and Wis 15.7 presents the idea that God alone has the right to
make what He desires from man, irrespective of any desires man may claim for himself.
For the interpreters who see God shaping some vessels for great use and others for
merely common use, they neglect the significance of the similarity of the language in Wis
15.7, which speaks of pure vessels, verses contrary vessels, which in context, meant
vain idols for pagan worship. It is insupportable that Paul meant common, when he
used the antithesis of the word honor, when he so closely alluded to Wis 15.7 without
qualification, and in the overall context of the argument (also see Appendix: Word Study
#1). Some have objected that the metaphor is a bad one, as man is not a lump of clay.
Such objections fall short as they place man in an exalted position of reason, judging
Gods actions. The reality is that God is revealing to man that just as a potter is far
superior to a clay vessel in his hands, so too is God so superior over man. As a lump of
clay is merely an object with which to work and make instruments and art out of, so too
is man in the hands of God. Cranfield suggests such a capricious view is absent from
the text, but he neglects to look back to the earlier context in his escalating argument,
which speaks of Gods shaping of Jacob and Esau (loving the one, and hating the other),
Gods hardening of Pharoah, Gods words to Moses that He will have compassion on
whom He wills and harden whomever He wills, and Pauls declaration that it does not
depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. Thus, the immediate
context, coupled with the sense of so many of the OT texts on the potter lend to the
conclusion that Paul is indeed placing the destiny of every man in the hands of God, and
yet recognizing that God will hold every individual accountable for the course of that
destiny.
Many people find such a view of God hard to handle. I find it difficult to avoid such
a view in light of this passage. It seems clear that Paul recognized that this doctrine is a
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

hard one to cope with, so he raised the objection himself and gave the only viable answer;
not an answer about twin pillars or double causality, but an answer that affirmed Gods
power, might, and uniqueness in His being, and put man in the place he is meant to be, at
Gods feet, rather than on His throne. If such a view of God is disheartening or too
stern, than it needs to be remembered that this is the reality in which God approached
the cross-event. We can hardly imagine a potter sacrificing his life to save the tools he
made with his own hands, and yet God, in incomprehensible love, sent His Son to die for
creatures that were even further below Him in value.

Validation #2

Romans 9.22

One of the more debated terms in this passage is (to be prepared). The
debate centers on first, whether the term is meant to be in the middle voice, or the
passive, and second, if it is meant to be passive, who is the agent behind the verb and
why did Paul leave the agent out?
The argument for taking the verb as a direct middle goes all the way back to
Chrysostom. Wallace makes the argument (416-418) that the middle voice is all but
passed out of usage in Koine Greek (though he asserts that it is not so rare as some
suppose), existing primarily in well established idiomatic expressions (such as clothing
oneself). Wallace argues further that the term occurs nowhere else as a direct
middle. Of the 13 times the term appears in the NT, seven are in the middle/passive form.
Four are clearly passive, while two are definitely aor middle (Matt 21.16; Heb 10.5), but
are obviously indirect middles. That leaves only Romans 9.22. Thus, the lexical nuance
of the term suggests passive over middle.
Beyond that, the question remains, who is the agent if the term is passive, which it
apparently is, and why is the agent not mentioned? Cranfield can be found to argue that
Paul doesnt want to bring an agent into the picture in order to emphasize the vessels
readiness, ripeness, for destruction and not to any act, whether of God or of themselves,
(496). While Cranfield is right to suggest that mention of the agent of a passive verb may
be left out in order to better emphasize a point, he ignores the overall context and flow of
the argument in the passage. As Wallace points out, Paul has just declared that God is in
complete control of the destiny of humans, and that like a potter who shapes vessels for
different uses, so too does God shape and mold some humans for honorable use, and
some for dishonorable use. Paul has even gone so far as to declare that it isnt up to
man to will or to do (desire or exert), but God who causes the willing and the doing by
showing mercy (and as proved in the next verse, by choosing not to show mercy). Aside
from the context of the passage and the flow of the argument, G. Delling shows that there
is simply no philological justification for this ripeness for destruction.
Wallace highlights yet further that the terms lexical nuance strongly suggests a
complete preparation. On top of that, the term is in the perfect tense which also carries the
grammatical nuance of a completed past action. Together, the term almost definitely
communicates the idea of a done deal, thus arguing against Cranfields position that the
terms emphasis is a mere ripeness for destruction that can yet be averted by Gods
Joshua Francis NT 105 Romans
File 262 December 15, 2014

enduring patience. While many commentators try to avoid such conclusions, it should
be unavoidable based on the flow of Pauls argument, the allusions to other potter
passages (see Appendix: Validation #1), and the lexical grammatical nuances of the
perfect passive of .