Romans 9: Romans 9:20-Paul Implicitly Rebukes The Attitude Of The Creature Presuming To Judge The Ways Of His Creator

Transcription

1 Romans 9:20-21 Romans 9:20-Paul Implicitly Rebukes The Attitude Of The Creature Presuming To Judge The Ways Of His Creator The apostle Paul in Romans 9:20 Paul responds to the rhetorical questions he presented in Romans 9:19 by implicitly rebuking the attitude of those who would presume to judge the ways of their Creator. Let s review what we have covered thus far in Romans chapter nine. The first paragraph in the chapter appears in the first five verses. In Romans 9:1, Paul implicitly appeals to Christ and the Holy Spirit as witnesses as to the veracity of his statements in Romans 9:2-3. Paul feels the need to do this since in his day he was accused by many in Israel as being a traitor to the nation. Romans 9:1, I am speaking the truth in accordance with the code of Christ. I am by no means lying, while my conscience does confirm to me in accordance with the code of the Holy Spirit. Then in Romans 9:2, Paul expresses his great sorrow and unceasing grief over the nation of Israel s rejection of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. Romans 9:2, That, as far my feelings are concerned, there is always great sorrow as well as unceasing anguish in my heart. Paul in Romans 9:3 communicates to his readers his great love for the nation of Israel by expressing his desire to be separated from Christ for their sake. Romans 9:3, In fact, I could almost wish that I myself could be accursed, totally and completely separated from Christ as a substitute for my brothers, specifically, my fellow countrymen with respect to racial descent. Then, in Romans 9:4-5, he lists eight privileges that were given to the nation of Israel by God that helps the reader understand the depth of his sorrow and grief. Romans 9:4-5, Who indeed by virtue of their unique, privileged character are, as an eternal spiritual truth, Israelites. To them belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service and the promises. To them belong the fathers and from them, the Christ with respect to human racial descent, the one who is, as an eternal spiritual truth, God over each and every living and non-living thing, worthy of praise and glorification throughout eternity. Amen! These verses serve as preface for Paul s statements in verses The second paragraph appears in verses 6-13, which contains two illustrations that serve to support Paul s premise in Romans 9:6. He presents the story of God choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau to be members of His covenant people, which serve to illustrate God sovereignly choosing the nation of Israel over the nations of the earth William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1

2 In Romans 9:6, Paul presents the premise that not all Israel is Israel and that Israel s rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah does not imply that God s Word in the form of His promises to the patriarchs has failed and for the rest of the chapter he illustrates this premise. Romans 9:6, Now, this does not by any means imply that the word originating from God is nullified because each and every person who descended from Israel, these are, as an eternal spiritual truth, by no means, Israel. In Romans 9:7, he cites Genesis 21:12 to prove this point with his readers that being a spiritual child of Abraham is not a birthright or in other words it is not based upon one s racial heritage but rather it is based upon faith in the promises and in particular faith in the promised Messiah. Romans 9:7, Nor because they are, as an eternal spiritual truth, Abraham s biological descendants are they, as an eternal spiritual truth, spiritual children. On the contrary, by means of the line of Isaac for your benefit, spiritual descendants will be effectually called. Then, in Romans 9:8, Paul teaches that the racial descendants of Abraham are not the considered by God to be His children but rather He considers the children of the promise as being such. Romans 9:8, This means these biological children by no means are, as an eternal spiritual truth, God s children. On the contrary, the promised children are, as an eternal spiritual truth, regarded as spiritual descendants. Next, in Romans 9:9, Paul paraphrases Genesis 18:10 and 14 to identify specifically the content of the Lord s promise to Abraham, which was that the Lord would fulfill His promise to Abraham and Sarah and they would have a son named Isaac. Romans 9:9, Specifically, this is, as an eternal spiritual truth, the word, which is a divine promise: At this time next year, I will intervene and for the benefit of Sarah there will be a son. This verse teaches that the nation of Israel was founded upon the promise to Abraham and in particular Abraham and Sarah s faith in the Lord s promise to give them a child in their advanced age. Thus, true Israel could never be based upon race. In Romans 9:10, Paul teaches that the story of Rebekah and her twins illustrates the principle that true Israel is based upon God s sovereign grace rather than race. This implies that the rejection of Christ by the majority of Jews did not constitute a failure on God s part since He had not broken any promises to the patriarchs and their descendants. Romans 9:10, In fact, not only this, but also Rebekah, while having been pregnant by means of one man as a source, our father Isaac William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2

3 Paul in Romans 9:11 teaches that God s choice of Jacob s descendants over Esau s in forming spiritual Israel was in order that the Father s predetermined plan, which is in accordance with election would remain immutable. He goes on to say in the verse that this is never based upon human merit as constituting this plan s source but rather based upon the Father who effectually calls as constituting this plan s source. Romans 9:11, For you see, when they had not yet been born nor practiced anything good or evil in order that God the Father s predetermined plan, which is in accordance with election would remain immutable. Never based upon meritorious actions as constituting its source, but rather based upon the one who effectually calls is the one who constitutes its source. This passage continues to support his argument from Romans 9:6 that the rejection of Christ by the majority of Jews did not constitute a failure on God s part since He had not broken any promises to the patriarchs and their descendants. In Romans 9:12, the apostle cites Genesis 25:23, which contains the prophecy that Esau s descendants would be in subjection to Jacob s and serves to illustrate to Paul s Jewish readers that the nation of Israel was founded upon God s sovereign grace and not race or human merit. It also serves to illustrate that God has kept His promises and that the nation of Israel is responsible for their own failure to accept by faith Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah. Romans 9:12, It was said to her, The older will be in subjection to the younger. In Romans 9:13, Paul quotes Malachi 1:3 to demonstrate that God elected Jacob s descendants, the nation of Israel as His covenant people and He rejected the Edomites as His covenant people who were descendants of Esau. That this passage is speaking of the nations descended from Jacob and Esau and not to them as individuals is clearly indicated by the fact Malachi 1:2-3 is clearly speaking of the nation of Edom rather than Esau the person. Furthermore, Paul quoted Genesis 25:23 in Romans 9:12 and the former was also a reference to the nations that would descend from Jacob and Esau rather than referring to them as individual personalities. Also, this is further indicated in that Paul s statements in Romans 9:7-13 supported his major premise in Romans 9:6 that not all Israel is descended from Israel, i.e. Jacob. Therefore, the statement refers to the national election of Israel as God s covenant people who are descendants of Jacob and the rejection of the Edomites as His covenant people who were descendants of Esau. Romans 9:13, As it stands written for all of eternity, Jacob I loved however Esau I hated. The rejection of Esau s descendants as His covenant people does not mean that God elected the Edomites and the Gentiles to eternal condemnation and the 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 3

4 Israelites to salvation since that would contradict the biblical doctrine of the unlimited atonement and that God desires all men to be saved. The election of the nation of Israel, like the choice of Jacob over Esau was non-meritorious meaning that there was nothing that the nation of Israel and Jacob did that secured God choosing them since many times both sinned and failed to obey God. The third paragraph in verses presents a third illustration that also serves to support Paul s premise in Romans 9:6, which is the account of God dealing with Pharaoh of Egypt. In Romans 9:14, Paul emphatically declares that there is never any unrighteousness with respect to God s judgment in rejecting unregenerate Israel in his day and accepting those Jews who had faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Also, in this passage he indicates that there is never any unrighteousness in God s judgment with respect to His dealings in the past when He chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau to be members of His covenant people. Romans 9:14, Therefore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to? There is, as an eternal spiritual truth no unrighteousness with respect to the judgment of God (the Father), is there? Absolutely not! In Romans 9:15, Paul supports this argument by presenting the basis for his statement in Romans 9:14 that God is never unfair because He is sovereign and can be merciful and compassionate to whomever He desires. In Paul s day, God rejected unsaved Israel and accepted those Jews who had faith in His Son Jesus Christ because He is sovereign to do so. Romans 9:15, Because, He says to Moses, I will be gracious to whomever I choose to be gracious to and in addition I will be merciful to whomever I choose to be merciful to. Then, in Romans 9:16, Paul teaches that experiencing God s grace and mercy and thus eternal salvation is never dependent upon human desire or effort but rather it is based upon God s grace policy. If God didn t first choose to be gracious and merciful to sinners, then none would experience His grace and mercy. Romans 9:16, Therefore in fact, it is never, as an eternal spiritual truth, dependent upon human desire or dependent upon human effort but rather dependent upon the One who is gracious, who is God. So in Romans 9:15-16, Paul views God s sovereignty and righteousness from the positive side in that He has every right to extend grace to those who exercise faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. Now, in Romans 9:17, he views God s sovereignty and righteousness from the negative side to further illustrate why God is never unfair for rejecting those in Paul s day who rejected Jesus Christ as Savior as well for rejecting Ishmael and Esau William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 4

5 Romans 9:17, In fact, the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose, I raised you up in order that I myself may demonstrate My power through you and in addition that the reputation of the character and work of my Person may be proclaimed publicly everywhere throughout the entire earth. Romans 9:17-18 parallels Romans 9: The emphasis in these verses is to demonstrate that God is not unrighteousness in His dealings with Israel in Paul s day or with Ishmael and Esau since Paul is answering further the rhetorical question in Romans 9:14. Paul uses God s sovereignty, grace and mercy to demonstrate this principle. In Romans 9:17, Paul cites Exodus 9:16, which records God s confrontation with the unregenerate Pharaoh of Egypt to illustrate further his statements in Romans 9:14-17 that God is never unfair. This is substantiated by Paul s statement in Romans 9:18 that God exercises grace to whomever He chooses to extend grace to and hardens whomever He chooses to harden as a result of their unbelief. Consequently, Romans 9:17-18 present the second reason as to why God is never unjust. In these verses, Paul wants his readers to see the relationship that exists between God s dealings with Pharaoh and His dealings with unregenerate Israel in his day. In the same way that God was glorified among the Gentiles through Pharaoh s disobedience in the past so in the same way in Paul s day God was being glorified among the Gentiles through the nation of Israel s disobedience to his gospel. In Romans 9:18, Paul summarizes his teaching in Romans 9:14-17 by reminding his readers that God extends grace to whomever He chooses to extend mercy to and He hardens whomever He chooses to harden. Romans 9:18, Therefore, in fact He, as an eternal spiritual truth, does extend grace to whomever He does choose however on the other hand, He, as an eternal spiritual truth, does harden whomever He does choose. Those whom He extends grace to are those sinners who appropriate His grace by exercising faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and those whom He hardens are those sinners who fail to appropriate His grace by rejecting Jesus Christ as Savior. Thus, God is never unrighteousness in His dealings with sinners as Paul argues in Romans 9:14 and if so then He was certainly not unrighteousness when rejecting the nation of Israel for rejecting His Son Jesus Christ as Savior. Neither is He unrighteous or unjust in exercising His wrath towards unregenerate Israel, nor is He unrighteous or unjust for exercising grace in the form of the forgiveness of sins towards those who Jews who accept His Son as Savior. Now, we must remember that in Romans 9:7-33, Paul is illustrating his premise in Romans 9:6 that not all racial or ethnic Israel is considered by God to be 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 5

6 spiritual Israel who are also called the children of the promise and spiritual descendants of Abraham. He is dealing in these verses with failure of Israel in his day to accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. He illustrates God s dealings with the present day unregenerate Israel by recalling that God chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau as well as His confrontation with Pharaoh of Egypt. Paul is arguing in these verses that Israel s present rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah does not in any way defeat God s purpose for the nation and that there will be a remnant in the future that will turn to Jesus as Savior. He also argues in chapters 9-11 that Israel s present rejection has resulted in the evangelization of the Gentiles throughout the earth. The fourth paragraph contained in Romans chapter nine appears in verses Romans 9:19-24, You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. Now, in Romans 9:19-24, Paul anticipates and refutes those who would reject his teaching in verses by presenting four rhetorical questions and one declarative statement. The imaginary opponent more than likely is a Jew since Paul is speaking in the context of Israel s rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah as well as his premise in verse 6 that not all racial Israel is considered by God to be His covenant people, Israel. In Romans 9:19, Paul continues to employ his diatribe style, which he reverted back to in verse 14 by asking two rhetorical questions, Why does He still find fault? and For who resists His will? The two rhetorical questions are closely connected in that the first is supported by the second. Romans 9:19, In reply, you will contend with me, Why does He, as an eternal spiritual truth, still find fault? For who does, as an eternal spiritual truth, resist His will? He answers these two rhetorical questions with four rhetorical questions in verses and a declarative statement in verses Romans 9:20-22, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 6

7 make me like this, will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? These rhetorical questions serve as an implicit rebuke to those who would contend that God is accountable to sinners and by implication those who would question the justice in His rejecting those Jews who reject Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. He poses these rhetorical questions since he anticipates one of his readers calling into question his teaching in verses in which he demonstrates that God is never unrighteous because He is sovereign and can be merciful and compassionate to whomever He desires. The implication is that in Paul s day, God was not unfair in rejecting those Jews who rejected Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. This further serves to illustrate his premise in verse 6 that not all racial or ethnic Israel is considered by God to be spiritual Israel and the children of the promise and spiritual descendants of Abraham. The declarative statement in verses teaches that while God was enduring with much patience those whom He knew would reject His Son, He was also accepting into His family those who accepted by faith His Son. Romans 9:23-24, And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. Let s now concentrate on verse 20. Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? On the contrary is the compound particle menounge (menou~nge) (men-oongay), which is composed of the particle men (mevn) (men) and the conjunction oun (ou@n) (oon) and the emphatic enclitic particle ge (gev) (gay). In the Greek New Testament, the word is used to introduce a correction or an emphasis and is found in answers to questions or in responses to statements or views which one wishes to correct or refine. In Romans 9:20, the word introduces a rhetorical question that implicitly rebukes the two rhetorical questions in Romans 9:19. The word introduces a rhetorical question that contrasts the objection implicit in the two rhetorical questions that appear in Romans 9:19. It emphatically marks a contrast with the objection implicit in the rhetorical questions in verse 19. Paul poses the rhetorical questions that appear in verse 19 since he anticipates one of his readers calling into question his teaching in verses in which he demonstrates 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 7

8 that God is never unrighteous because He is sovereign and can be merciful and compassionate to whomever He desires. The rhetorical questions in Romans 9:20-22 serve as an implicit rebuke to those who would contend that God is accountable to sinners and by implication those who would question the justice in His rejecting those Jews who reject Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. The implication is that in Paul s day, God was not unfair in rejecting those Jews who rejected Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. This further serves to illustrate his premise in verse 6 that not all racial or ethnic Israel is considered by God to be spiritual Israel and the children of the promise and spiritual descendants of Abraham. We will translate menounge, In fact, on the contrary. Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Who is the nominative masculine singular form of the interrogative pronoun tis (tiv$) (tis), which asks a rhetorical question that serves as an implicit rebuke for those who would call into question God s sovereign decisions. It functions as a predicate nominative meaning that it is making an assertion about the subject in this rhetorical question that no man is ever justified in calling into question God s sovereign decisions. We will translate tis, who. Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Are is the second person singular present active indicative form of the verb eimi (ei)miv) (i-mee), which functions as a copula uniting the subject, the personal pronoun su, you and the predicate nominative, the interrogative particle tis, who. The word denotes belonging to a particular class indicating in this rhetorical question that human beings are not in the same class as God and thus are not justified in calling into question God s sovereign decisions. In Romans 9:20, the noun anthropos, man and theos, God are set in contrast to each other to demonstrate that the former is subordinate to the latter and inferior to the latter. Thus, eimi in this rhetorical question indicates that Paul is saying that those who object or call into question God s sovereign decisions have no business doing so since they do not belong in the same class with God. The second person singular form is a reference to someone who might possibly pose the rhetorical questions that appear in Romans 9:19. The present tense is a customary present used to signal an ongoing state and thus denotes the ongoing state of those who would call into question God s sovereign decision. Therefore, the active is also stative meaning that the subject exists in the state indicated by the verb. This indicates that a person who might 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 8

9 possible pose the rhetorical questions that appear in Romans 9:19 ridiculously considering himself or herself as existing in the state of being in the same class as God. This is an interrogative indicative which is employed with the interrogative pronoun tis, why to form a rhetorical question that serves to implicitly rebuke those who would pose the rhetorical questions that appear in verse 19. We will translate eimi, are. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? You is the nominative second person singular personal pronoun su (suv), which is emphatic because it is placed at the beginning of the statement emphasizing that the rhetorical question serves as an implicit rebuke to those who would dare to pose the rhetorical questions in verse 19 that call into question God s sovereign decisions. The word emphasizes the infinite gulf between man and God. The word functions as a nominative subject meaning that it is performing the action of the verb eimi, are. We will translate su, you. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you? Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? O man is composed of the interjection O (w)!), and the vocative masculine singular form of the noun anthropos (a*nqrwpo$) (anth-ro-pos). The word appears in the emphatic position in the sentence and is set in contrast with the noun theos that appears at the end of the rhetorical question in order to accentuate an emphatic contrast between finite man and infinite God. The interjection indicates that the anthropos is a vocative of emphatic, emotional address and expresses Paul s deep emotion of righteous indignation that someone who even consider posing the rhetorical questions that appear in verse 19. The articular construction of the word is generic meaning that it serves to distinguishing mankind from God. Therefore, we will translate the word, a mere human being. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being? 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 9

10 Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Who answers back is the articular nominative second person masculine singular present (deponent) middle participle form of the verb antapokrinomai (a)ntapokrivnomai) (an-tap-ok-ree-nom-i). This verb is a compound word composed of the preposition anti, against and the verb apokrinomai, to answer. Thus, the word literally means, to answer back or reply against. In classical Greek, the word was used as a technical mathematical term meaning to correspond to. It only appears three times in the Septuagint (Job 16:8; 32:12; Judges 5:29). In Job it means to testify against and answer against but in Judges it means simply to answer. The verb only appears twice in the Greek New Testament (Luke 14:6; Romans 9:20). In Luke it is used of the Pharisees who could not answer back by contradicting Jesus teaching. In Romans 9:20, the word is used in a rhetorical question that serves as an implicit rebuke to those sinful human beings who would dare to pose the rhetorical questions in Romans 9:19 that call into question God s sovereign decisions and describes these individuals as contradicting God. It functions as a substantive participle as indicated by the definite article preceding it, which functions as a substantiver meaning that it converts the participle into a substantive. The middle voice of the verb is deponent meaning that it has an active voice meaning even though it has a middle voice form. The active voice is stative indicating the subject exists in the state indicated by the verb. The subject in our present context is a possible objector to God s sovereign decisions. Therefore, the deponent middle voice form of the verb antapokrinomai indicates that no particular person is existing in the state of contradicting God as a result of His decree. The present tense is stative emphasizing that no particular person as the subject is existing in the state of contradicting God for His decree. We will translate the verb antapokrinomai, to contradict. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being-to contradict? Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? To God is the articular dative masculine singular form of the noun theos (qeov$), which refers to the Father since the articular construction of this word is used in the Greek New Testament to denote this member of the Trinity William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 10

11 The word functions as a dative of disadvantage meaning that it is against or to God s disadvantage that a mere human being would call into question His sovereign decisions, which are based upon His omniscient knowledge of all the facts. We will translate the word God. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being-to contradict God? Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? The second rhetorical in this passage The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? is a quotation from Isaiah 29:16 and reminiscent of Isaiah 45:9. Isaiah 29:16, You turn things around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, that what is made would say to its maker, He did not make me or what is formed say to him who formed it, He has no understanding? Isaiah 45:9, Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker -- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, What are you doing? Or the thing you are making say, He has no hands? In the original text of Romans 9:20, the first six words in this second rhetorical question (mhv e)rei~ tov plavsma tw~ plavsanti) match exactly Isaiah 29:16a. However, the remaining words in the text of Romans 9:20 (Tiv me e)poivhsa$ ou%tw$) is not a quotation from Isaiah 45:9 but as Cranfield states they are reminiscent of Isaiah 45:9 and Wisdom 12:12. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, volume 2, page 491; T & T Clark, New York-London) The thing molded is the articular nominative neuter singular form of the noun plasma (plavsma) (plas-mah). The noun plasma refers to the product of skilled action or thought, whether divine or human. In classical Greek, the product is frequently regarded negatively such as a physical object being inferior to the spiritual or a thought humanly fabricated or a forgery as opposed to a true idea from the heavenly realm. The noun appears only six times in the Septuagint and denotes the good product of divine creativity (Psalm 103:14 [LXX 102:14]. The word can be used of human skill whether a pot (Isaiah 29:16) or an idol (Habakkuk 2:18). It denotes generally any object that is molded or formed. Plasma appears only once in the Greek New Testament and refers to man who has been formed by God. Paul uses this word to draw the analogy between 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 11

12 mankind and the clay that is employed by the potter who is analogous to the Sovereign Creator of mankind. The noun functions as a nominative subject as indicated by its articular construction indicating that the word is performing the action of the verb ereo, did you make whose meaning is negated by the particle me, not. We will translate the word the object formed. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being-to contradict God? The object formed Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Will not say is composed of the negative particle me (mhv) (may), not and the third person singular future active indicative form of the verb ereo (e)revw) (ereh-o). This verb appears 50 times in the Greek New Testament. Various forms of this verb indicate not just the speaking of words but rather they indicate the forcefulness of the speaker is emerging in a command, affirmation, or objection. The speaker is not only verbalizing a thought but emphasizing it as well. In Romans 9:20, the verb is used with man as the subject in this rhetorical question and means, to contend since Paul is assuming the position of those among his readers who would stridently oppose or debate his teaching in verses It denotes no particular human being contending with his Creator with regards to His Creator s sovereign decisions. The verb s meaning is negated by the negative particle me, which is subjective, involving will and thought, not fact and statement as ou does. It is the weaker, milder negative denying subjectively and with hesitancy, an unsteady particle, a hesitating negative, an indirect or subjunctive denial, an effort to prevent or prohibit what has not yet happened. It is a negative of will, wish, doubt. The negative ou denies the fact whereas me denies the idea. It leaves the question open for further remarks or entreaty whereas ou would close the door abruptly. Ou denies the thing in itself but me denies the thought of the thing, or the thing according to the judgment, opinion, will, purpose, preference, of some one (hence, as we say technically, indirectly, hypothetically, subjectively). Therefore, the negative particle me is used to negate the idea of the verb ereo. It denies the idea of the object formed objecting with the potter shaping him into what he desires, which is analogous to sinful mankind objecting to God s creating him as He did. The future tense of the verb is a deliberative future meaning that it asks a question that implies some doubt about the response. However, Paul is asking a rhetorical question in place of a direct assertion that demands a negative response William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 12

13 In the active voice, Paul assumes the position of those who would object to God s sovereign decisions as part of a debater s technique in order to refute their objection. This is an interrogative indicative where an assertion is expected from Paul s readers. The negative particle me indicates that Paul is presenting a rhetorical question that demands a negative response. We will translate the negative particle me, not and the verb ereo, will object. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being-to contradict God? The object formed will not object Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? To the molder is the articular dative masculine singular aorist active participle form of the verb plasso (plavssw) (plas-so). In classical Greek this word was used of the creative activity of the gods and especially of men. It includes both material products such as an idol and even ideas. In relation to divine creation, the word is dualistic meaning that a chief god makes souls whereas a lesser god shapes bodies. However, this dualism does not appear in either the Septuagint or the Greek New Testament. In the Septuagint, the word is used in Genesis 2:7 of the Lord forming from the dust of the ground the physical body of Adam. (See also Isaiah 43:1) Plasso appears only twice in the Greek New Testament (Romans 9:20; 1 Timothy 2:13). In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul used the word to help explain why he did not permit woman to hold the office of pastor-teacher where it referred to the formation of Adam s physical body from the dust of the ground before Eve. In Romans 9:20, the word means the one who forms an object and alludes to a potter who forms an object from clay. This word is analogous to the Creator of mankind. It functions as a dative of association indicating that Paul in this rhetorical question is rebuking those who would object or dispute with his Creator s sovereign decisions. The word also functions as a substantive participle as indicated by the definite article preceding it, which functions as a substantiver meaning that it converts the participle into a substantive. Therefore, this can be reflected by translating the article with a relative pronoun phrase, the who. The aorist tense is a consummative or culminative aorist, which is used to emphasize the cessation of an act or state. This type of aorist views an event in its entirety but regarding it from the viewpoint of its existing results. Therefore, the 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 13

14 culminative aorist views the artist who forms objects or vessels from clay but regards it from the standpoint of its existing results, which is that he does shapes works of art from clay. The active voice is a reference to the artist who is analogous to God and who forms vessels or works of art from clay. We will translate the verb plasso, with the one who forms the object. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being-to contradict God? The object formed will not object with the one who forms the object Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Why is the accusative neuter singular form of the interrogative pronoun tis (tiv$) (tis), which asks a debater s rhetorical question that implicitly rebukes those who would pose the rhetorical questions in Romans 9:19 that call into question the wisdom of God s sovereign decisions. The word functions as an accusative direct object meaning it is receiving the action of the verb poieo. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being-to contradict God? The object formed will not object with the one who forms the object, Why Romans 9:20, On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Did you make me like this? is composed of the second person singular aorist active indicative form of the poieo (poievw) (poy-eh-o), did you make and the first person singular accusative form of the personal pronoun ego (e)gwv) (e ), me and the adverb of manner houtos (ou^tw$) (hoo-tos), like this. The verb poieo means to make and denotes an action complete in itself, emphasizing accomplishment. Here it is used in analogy where the potter is analogous to the Creator and the object that he forms is analogous to mankind. The second person singular form of the verb refers to the artist forms an object from clay and who is analogous to the Creator. The aorist tense is a consummative or culminative aorist, which is used to emphasize the cessation of an act or state. This type of aorist views an event in its entirety but regarding it from the viewpoint of its existing results. Therefore, the culminative aorist views the views the completion of a vessel from clay by the potter but regards it from the standpoint of its existing results, which is that this object is completed by the potter William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 14

15 The active voice is a reference to the artist who is analogous to God and who forms vessels from clay. This is an interrogative indicative where is employed with the interrogative pronoun tis, why to form a second rhetorical question that serves as an implicit rebuke of those who would pose the two rhetorical questions that appear in Romans 9:19. We will translate poieo, did you make. The personal pronoun ego personifies the vessel of pottery formed by a potter and is analogous to mankind. It functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb poieo indicating that pottery vessel was created by the potter who is analogous to the Creator of mankind. We will translate ego, me. The adverb of manner houtos describes the manner in which the clay was formed into a particular vessel by the potter. The vessel is being personified as objecting to the manner in which the potter formed him into a particular vessel. We will translate the word like this. Completed corrected translation of Romans 9:20: In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human being-to contradict God? The object formed will not object with the one who forms the object, Why did you make like this? Paul poses the rhetorical questions that appear in verse 19 since he anticipates one of his readers calling into question his teaching in verses in which he demonstrates that God is never unrighteous because He is sovereign and can be merciful and compassionate to whomever He desires. The rhetorical questions in Romans 9:20-22 serve as an implicit rebuke to those who would contend that God is accountable to sinners and by implication those who would question the justice in His rejecting those Jews who reject Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. The implication is that in Paul s day, God was not unfair in rejecting those Jews who rejected Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. This further serves to illustrate his premise in verse 6 that not all racial or ethnic Israel is considered by God to be spiritual Israel and the children of the promise and spiritual descendants of Abraham. In Romans 9:20, Paul responds to the rhetorical questions he presented in Romans 9:19 by implicitly rebuking the attitude of those who would pose these questions and would thus presume to judge the ways of their Creator. No sinner has a right to call into question, God s decision to extend grace to whoever He chooses to and harden those whom He chooses to harden since no one has any merit with God. In fact, those whom He hardens are those who first harden themselves by rejecting His Son as Savior and those whom He extends grace to are those who appropriate His grace through faith alone in Christ alone William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 15

16 Furthermore, every member of the human race is treated by God in grace since the offer of salvation is extended to all men since He desires all men to be saved and sent His Son to the cross for all men to make this offer possible for all men. Whether you are Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh, or unregenerate Israel in Paul s day, or a member of the church, all are condemned before a holy God and only those who exercise faith in Jesus Christ as Savior are declared justified by Him William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 16

17 Romans 9:21-Paul Uses The Potter And Clay Analogy To Implicitly Rebuke The Attitude Of The Creature Presuming To Judge The Ways Of His Creator In Romans 9:21, Paul continues to respond to the rhetorical questions he presented in Romans 9:19 that might be posed by his opponents by implicitly rebuking the attitude of those who would presume to judge the ways of their Creator. In verse 21, Paul employs a rhetorical question that is related to the one in verse 20, which demands a positive response from the reader that the potter who is analogous to God does have authority over the clay, which is analogous to Israel, though this is true of the Gentiles as well. Remember, Paul is speaking in the context of Israel s rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. In verse 21, he is continuing to demonstrate his premise in Romans 9:6 that even though Jesus of Nazareth was rejected by the nation of Israel as her Messiah, this does not imply that God s promises to the nation have been nullified since not all racial Israel is considered by God to be spiritual Israel. Romans 9:21, Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Or is the particle e (h&) (ay), which introduces a rhetorical question that presents a necessary related alternative to the rhetorical question in Romans 9:20. Romans 9:20, In fact, on the contrary, who are you-a mere human beingto contradict God? The object formed will not contend with the one who forms the object, Why did you make like this? In the analogy, Paul states that it is ridiculous to think that the clay could object to the way the potter is forming him to be a particular vessel for his use. His readers would obviously have to agree that it would be ridiculous for the clay to do such a thing if it were possible. So in the same way, Paul is teaching by way of implication that neither does the Jew or the Gentile for that matter have any business to call into question God s sovereign decisions. God has every right to harden those in Israel whom He chooses and to extend grace to those in Israel whom He chooses as well. Those Israelites whom He hardens are those who first hardened themselves by rejecting His Son as Savior and those in Israel whom He extended grace to, are those who appropriate His grace through faith alone in Christ alone. This is clearly indicated by Paul s teaching in the first five chapters of the Roman epistle and which he will clearly presents in chapter 10 where points out that the nation of Israel was hardened by God because they first hardened themselves William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 17

18 Furthermore, every member of the human race is treated by God in grace since the offer of salvation is extended to all men since He desires all men to be saved and sent His Son to the cross for all men to make this offer possible for all men. Whether you are Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh, or unregenerate Israel in Paul s day, or a member of the church, all are condemned before a holy God and only those who exercise faith in Jesus Christ as Savior are declared justified by Him. Therefore, since Paul s readers would have to agree with the principle set forth in Romans 9:20, then they must accept the related alternative implicit in the rhetorical question in Romans 9:21. Thus, Romans 9:21 serves to reinforce Romans 9:20. We will translate the particle of separation e, or. Romans 9:21, Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? The potter is the articular nominative masculine singular form of the noun kerameus (kerameuv$) (ker-am-yooce). In classical Greek, this word was used from the time of Homer in the eight century B.C. was used to describe a potter. The Septuagint employs the word in the same manner but it by way of analogy for God in His relationship with the nation of Israel (Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; Jeremiah 18:6). The potter-clay motif appears in several Old Testament passages (Job 10:8-9; Psalm 33:15; Isaiah 29:15-16; 45:8-10; 64:8-9; Jeremiah 18:1-6; Lamentations 4:2). The word appears only three times in the Greek New Testament (Matthew 27:7, 10; Romans 9:21). In Matthew, it was used to describe the potter s field that was purchased with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas was given to betray the Lord Jesus. In Romans 9:21, the apostle Paul employs the Old Testament potter-clay motif with the noun kerameus. The word is used to denote God s authority over Israel and describes His relationship to Israel where He is analogous to the potter and Israel is analogous to the clay. The articular construction of the word signifies that it functions as a nominative subject meaning that it is performing the action of the verb echo whose meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou. We will translate kerameus, the potter. Romans 9:21, Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Does not have a right is composed of the emphatic negative adverb ou (ou)) (oo), not and the third person singular present active indicative form of the verb 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 18

19 echo (e&xw) (ekh-o), does have and the accusative feminine singular form of the noun exousia (e)cousiva) (ex-oo-see-ah), a right. The verb echo appears in a rhetorical question and means to possess a particular object, which is identified by the articular genitive masculine singular form of the noun pelos, clay. The emphatic negative adverb ou emphatically negates the meaning of the verb and indicates that a positive response is demanded from the reader whereas if the particle me was used, then a negative response would be demanded. It emphatically affirms that the potter has authority over the clay. Thus, by way of analogy God has absolute authority over Israel. The present tense is a gnomic present, which is used for a general timeless fact or spiritual axiom, or an eternal spiritual truth and says something does happen. This indicates that the potter who is analogous to God, as an eternal spiritual truth does have authority over the clay, which is analogous to Israel. The active voice is stative meaning that in this rhetorical question the potter (God) does exist in the state of possessing authority over the clay (Israel). This is an interrogative indicative where an assertion is expected from Paul s readers. The emphatic negative adverb ou indicates that Paul is presenting a rhetorical question that demands a positive response from his readers. We will translate echo, does possess and ou, not absolutely. Therefore, Paul is saying with this rhetorical question, does not the potter possess authority over the clay? Absolutely! In classical Greek, the noun exousia appears in different type of literature. It could denote authority to rule, one bearing such authority, the sphere controlled by this authority, and the power to do something. It is closely related to dunamis, power but differs by its intent of the delegation of authority rather than the capability of the inherent power of dunamis. Exousia appears in the fifth century B.C. in the writings of Thucydides and was used by Antiphon Orator meaning an ability to do something as long as there were no hindrances (Kittel, 2:562). The word generally denotes the right to act according to legal or moral standards. Thus it is often used in an official sense to describe the authority of a king. The word has a derived meaning authoritative position and in the plural authorities. It appears over fifty times in the Septuagint where it retains the idea of authority. The noun exousia is used in the Septuagint for God s power in the sense of His absolute sovereignty. Josephus and Philo used the word in this manner as well. Exousia appears 103 times in the Greek New Testament where both the classical and Septuagint meanings are retained. The basic idea of authority is used of God, Jesus Christ and the believer William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 19

20 In Romans 9:21, the word is in a Pauline analogy where the potter s authority over the clay, which he molds into a vessel and is analogous to God s authority over Israel. It functions as an accusative direct object meaning that it is receiving the action of the verb echo whose meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou. We will translate exousia, authority. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:21: Or does not the potter possess authority Absolutely! Romans 9:21, Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Over the clay is the articular genitive masculine singular form of the noun pelos (phlov$) (pay-los). In classical Greek, pelos primarily refers to the earth that a potter molds in a vessel. The word was figuratively of man s creation by the gods. The Septuagint uses it to refer to basic soil or dust (Job 10:9; 27:16; 30:19); the mixture used by potters (Isaiah 29:16; 41:25; 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6) or brickmasons (Genesis 11:3; Exodus 1:14; Nahum 3:14), the muck, mire, mud of a road or field (Psalm 18:42). It is used figuratively in the Septuagint where bodies are referred to as houses of clay (Psalm 40:2). Pelos appears only six times in the Greek New Testament (John 9:6 twice; 11, 14, 15; Romans 9:21). In Romans 9:21, the word means clay, which is analogous to Israel and along with kerameus conveys the image of a potter and his clay. The word functions as a genitive of subordination specifying that which is subordinated to or under the dominion of the head noun. This type of genitive is related to only certain kinds of noun that lexically imply some kind of rule or authority. Therefore, as a genitive of subordination pelos, clay specifies that all Israel is under the dominion or authority of God who is portrayed by Paul as a potter. We will translate pelos, over the clay. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 9:21: Or does not the potter possess authority over the clay? Absolutely! Romans 9:21, Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? To make is the aorist active infinitive form of the verb poieo (poievw) (poyeh-o), which denotes an action complete in itself, emphasizing accomplishment. The word denotes the completion of the potter s work in forming from the same lump, a vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use. Here it is used 2009 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 20