Scripture: Romans 9:19-23
Date: April 3, 2016
Speaker: Sean Higgins
Before looking at the text itself I want you to think through something with me again that we considered a couple Sunday nights ago. For those who weren’t here, or because it is difficult to put our minds around, I want us to take a moment and consider God’s display of God: His right and delight in promoting Himself to His creation.
As Jonathan Edwards argued in his book, The End for Which God Created the World: God does everything He does to glorify Himself.
Some hear that and struggle with the idea that God is seeking His own glory. That sounds selfish and proud. That sounds like the kind of thing that we despise in someone else. Doesn’t God Himself speak about pride as a sin? Isn’t seeking to serve oneself selfishness? Egocentric?
It is true that for a human to lift himself above others is nothing but pride and desire for self-glorification. This is an accurate judgment because no one man is inherently more valuable or excellent than another because we all bear God’s image.
But Scripture paints a very different picture about God. Scripture describes God as THE being who is inherently more valuable and more excellent than every other.
Every part of creation comes from Him, exists through Him, and is ultimately directed to Him. From the creation of the world in the beginning through the flow of history since, all things are brought into being for His sake!
In fact, if God did not to seek to glorify Himself then He would be an idolater. If He were to give glory to something that was not the most excellent or worthy thing, then He would be unrighteous. In following Edward’s thought we may argue about God’s creation that:
So God is doing everything for His own sake, for His own glory, because He is the most excellent and infinitely worthy being. Again, it would be wrong for Him not to do this.
As it relates to our study in Romans 9 we may apply the general principle above to two of God’s specific attributes:
AS WELL AS (to no lesser extent or degree)
THEREFORE:
God’s end is the display of BOTH His grace in salvation AND His wrath in condemnation. This is how it could be His purpose to raise up Pharaoh, His purpose to harden whom He desires, His purpose to prepare vessels of wrath for destruction, and His purpose to reject Israel for a season.
God is God. He is at work displaying His “god-ness.” Romans 9:19-23 should continue to help us see how “right” this is.
I think that the most logical end of the paragraph is at the end of verse 23. I know that most of our translations have the next paragraph division at verse 29. But what makes verses 14-23 distinct is that Paul’s justification of God deals generally with the issue of God’s sovereignty, not specifically with the issue of God’s faithfulness regarding His promise to Israel. Paul concludes his justification of God’s unconditional election with the unfinished sentence of verse 23, and then with verse 24 returns to the particular discussion of 9:6-8 which had given rise to the issue of unconditional election in the first place.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (verse 19)
The question (or objection) of verse 19 flows from the previous paragraph where God shows mercy and hardens whomever He wills regardless of human effort or choice. God’s will determines whatever occurs, and therefore (the objection goes), He, rather than human beings must be held responsible.
There would be no teeth to this question if the previous verses taught that the deciding factor in human destiny was human choices. The question emerges precisely because the destiny of human beings is attributed to nothing but the will of God.
Embedded in these questions is an complaint that God’s sovereign act of hardening (verse 18b) contradicts the clear biblical teaching about the justice of God’s judgment on people who resist Him (see Romans 1:18-23). The assumption is that people must be responsible for their own actions if God’s judgment can be truly just.
But how else can these verses in Romans 9 be explained other than by saying that God is in control and He still righteously finds fault in sinful men? He chooses to condemn those who He wants apart from anything in them, and then punishes them for their rejection of Him.
Perhaps someone still wants to say, “That does nor seem fair.” For sake of consistency we should also ask that person to give up the doctrine of salvation by grace too, because it is also unfair for God to save any sinner. If He cannot condemn who He wishes, He cannot save who He wishes. You must be willing to reject God’s grace if you want to reject His sovereign wrath. It is potentially even more unfair to save those who are actually worthy of eternal punishment.
Paul is still not ready to solve the problem by retreating from his previous argument. He does not disagree at all with the idea that God’s will is the ultimate cause of one’s destiny. Paul does not deny the premise: no one can resist His will. Paul agrees that no one can resist His will. If the objection had been false, undoubtedly Paul would have refuted it (probably with one of his frequent phrases, “May it never be!”).
This is so important, if you want to hold on to any hope…you must not back down from this truth either. If you want to believe that “all things work together for good to those that love God, to those that are called according to His purpose” then you must believe that no planet, no person, and no proton can resist His will. He is either in control or He is not. He is either God, or He is not.
Paul doesn’t deny the premise but he does deny the conclusion of the proposes argument: God therefore cannot find fault with human beings. In other words, Paul believes that God is ultimately sovereign and determines all things AND AT THE SAME TIME maintains that human beings are responsible for their choices and actions.
Verses 21-23 show that Paul does not reject a humble inquiry into the ways of God. There is an appropriate type of questioning in order to know God more. But verse 20 shows that the objection here does not represent a humble attempt put the puzzle pieces of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility together.
The questioning Paul responds to here manifests a rebellious spirit that refuses to tolerate and stomach a God who holds humans responsible for what He sovereignly purposes. The objection was not a humble “How can these things be?” but an indignant declaration that these things ought not to be.
That makes a huge difference. There are some who may not understand yet exactly how Paul fits everything together underneath the umbrella of God’s sovereignty, but they are willing to believe and learn and wrestle and pray and consider. There are some others for whom the problem is not understanding but rather a rebellious heart. We want to make sure that we are in the former group, not the latter.
A “rebuttal” is a denial of something, especially by presenting arguments that disprove it. In Paul’s rebuttal against the idea that God cannot justly hold accountable those that He chooses to harden he gives two lines of argument: what it means to be the pot, and what it means to be the Potter.
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? (verse 20)
What is under consideration here in the first part of Paul’s rebuttal is what it means to be the creature rather than the Creator. This is the creature’s standing, his status, his rank before the Creator. The creature has no right to judge His Creator. That’s what it means to be the pot.
The verse should not be interpreted to say that there is no answer at all to the question posed in verse 19. An answer is provided, but it is an answer that emphasizes the frailty of human beings and the greatness of God rather than one which defends human greatness and ability.
So the first part of Paul’s rebuttal emphasizes the gulf between human beings and God, and he accentuates the subordinate, creaturely status of the ‘objector.’
We know that some people argue that this makes men into robots. Well, at least robots can move. They can at least be sort of sophisticated. Here, Paul compares us with inanimate, totally lifeless pots.
The presumptuousness of the complaint is conveyed in the words o man, and in the emphatic who are you? Even more, the audaciousness of the protestor is signified in the words who answers back to God. The word “answers back” describes an argumentative and resistant response, not merely an attempt to get an answer to a difficult question. It’s as if Paul said, “Who do think you are?”
Frail and finite human beings should not arrogantly question God’s justice and give Him direction on how to run the world. God’s sovereign rights are defended with the illustration of the potter. God, like the potter, has sovereign rights to do what He wishes with His creation.
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? (verse 21)
What is under consideration in this second part of Paul’s rebuttal is what it means to be the Creator. What we see here is God’s sovereignty, His liberty, His autonomy, His authority as Creator to do whatever He wants. That’s what it means to be the Potter.
As the sovereign one, God has the right to make some vessels for honorable use (salvation) and some for common use or “dishonorable use” (destruction). The potter has independence to do whatever He wants. It is His prerogative and His choice. By definition the Creator has absolute freedom to do what He wants with His creatures.
Note that both pots are made from the same lump. The various types of vessels which the potter chooses to make are not at all determined by what the clay itself is. Had the vessel for honor and the vessel for dishonor been made from different lumps of clay one might argue that there was some distinctive quality in the different lumps which caused the potter to appoint them for different ends.
But the idea here is the same as it was in 9:10-13. The stress in those verses falls on the fact that Rebecca conceived her two sons “by one man, Isaac.” As I heard R.C. Sproul say one, they were “wombates.”
Some have tried to argue that verse 21 refers not to eternal destiny (salvation or condemnation), but that being made for honorable use or common use is simply a description of earthly position; some pots have more prestige than others. But everything in the context argues against this interpretation. Romans 9-11 deals with why some in Israel are saved and why others are not. God’s wrath and destruction (verse 22) are contrasted with His mercy and glory (verse 23), all four terms dealing with salvation or the lack of it.
So out of the same formless lump, God makes some who are destined to stand in honor (as partakers of the Messianic glory), and others who are to stand in dishonor (as partakers of eternal damnation). That is precisely what it means for God to be God and for us to be His creatures.
Paul could have concluded his defense at this point. But since He does not, we see that he is not reluctant to reflect a little longer and more deeply on the problem of God’s sovereignty in hardening some and having mercy on others. Romans 9:22-23 is Paul’s final insight into the whys and wherefores of unconditional election.
This may be the closest that the Bible ever comes to offering us an explanation of God’s mysterious ways with man, and in particular, how the existence of evil, sin and suffering fits with what we know to be a good and loving God.
Why has God made the world to function this way? Paul has just affirmed in verses 20-21 in the most sweeping terms imaginable the sovereign freedom of God to do what He wishes with what He has created, but He has not supplied a reason. Verses 22-23 build on the illustration by informing us now why God prepared some vessels for destruction and others for mercy.
There are three purposes found in verses 22-23: first, God made some vessels that are destined for destruction because He wanted to reveal His wrath. Second, God made some vessels that are destined for destruction because He wanted to reveal His power against sin. And third, God made some vessels that are destined for destruction because He wanted to show off His immeasurable grace to the vessels of mercy.
What if God,… endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (verse 22)
Before we can look specifically at the purposes we need to find out just what it means that God endured with much patience God defers His immediate judgment of vessels of wrath so that He can unveil the full extent of His power and wrath on those who continually resist His offer of repentance. The idea that God suspends an immediate retribution in order to impose a severer judgment later is common.
In a military conflict, a measure of patience and restraint at one point in the battle may secure a greater victory later. This insight into the patience of a military commander may explain how it is that God’s desire to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known motivates Him not immediately to overthrown the enemy but rather to patiently sustain and tolerate the enemy for a while.
The vessels of wrath describe those that God “hates,” such as Esau, those that He “hardens,” such as Pharaoh, those that He has chosen to destroy. There is no basis found in the context for thinking that these vessels of wrath will later become vessels for mercy. The text itself rules this out explicitly by describing them as vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
The word destruction is disputed, but it is always used by Paul with reference to final condemnation (see Philippians 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 6:9; etc.). Some have suggested that no potter would create a pot just to shatter it. But “destruction” here does not mean that God prepares vessels just to take away their existence, rather the opposite, He takes away glorious existence.
And the strongest evidence yet that salvation and damnation are in view is the contextual flow of thought throughout Romans 9-11. The discussion is centered around the Jewish national unbelief.
There is some question as to the force of God’s willing. Some suggest that this “wishing” is concessive. In this case Paul is expressing what God wanted to do but did not actually do, while verse 23 would state with God’s ultimate purpose in bearing with vessels of wrath.
The second possibility is that God’s “wishing” is causal. In this case, the two infinitives in verse 22 that depend on this participle would be essentially parallel with the purpose clause in verse 23, all three summarizing God’s purpose in bearing patiently with the vessels of wrath.
The second interpretation fits the context better since it achieves a more natural parallel with verses 17-18. In the case of both Pharaoh and of the vessels of wrath, God withholds His final judgment so that He can more spectacularly display His glory.
For example, God’s raising up of Pharaoh and enduring him through the whole story of hardness was not in spite of His desire to show His power but because of His desire to show it. These three things, then, are the cause or motive for His enduring.
So a paraphrase might be: “What objection can you make if it is true (and it is), that God has tolerated with great patience vessels He prepared for destruction when you realize that His purpose in doing so has been to demonstrate His wrath and to make known His power, all so that He could ultimately make known the riches of His glory to vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory?”
to demonstrate His wrath
Just as it is appropriate for every great artist to demonstrate in the variety of his work the full range of his skill and power, so, according to Paul, it is God’s right and His great desire to manifest the full range of His character in the things that He does.
The first purpose here is that He would demonstrate His wrath. For man to argue that it is wrong for an eternal, sovereign Creator to “demonstrate His wrath” he must also argue that it is right for the Creator not to reveal any parts of Himself. To argue that God should not give open display to His wrath is to imply that it is not in fact glorious, and that God is not in fact as he SHOULD be. They must redefine God apart from His revelation of Himself.
Paul is not attempting to show that God’s sovereign hardening accords with normal human values, nor that it is consistent with the ways human regularly work. Instead he shows that it follows necessarily from what it means to be God!
Our persistent and habitual bent toward self-exaltation keeps us from naturally affirming the ways of God. He, however, is at work to make the grand demonstration of Himself, and in verse 22 He is showing off His wrath.
and to make His power known,
and (willing these [two] things) in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory——
The and at the beginning of verse 23 may appear to coordinate this third purpose with the first two. But its position as the last of three purposes and its distinct introduction with in order that (and not an infinitive like the first two) suggest that the purpose in verse 23 is the ultimate and that the two purposes of verse 22 are subordinate to this ultimate one.
So God has endured for the sake of purposes 1 and 2, but mainly because they are necessary for the fulfillment of purpose 3.
Paul’s justification of God does not stop with the demonstration that God, as God, must display the whole range of His character in order to be righteous; he goes on to assert that there is a unity in this display, and that perhaps we might say that all of God’s attributes stand in the service of His mercy, and thus function to heighten the revelation of glory for the vessels of mercy and to heighten and intensify their appreciation of it.
Here is Jonathan Edwards answering the question why a good and holy God would decree that there be hardening and evil. This is not a passage from the Bible, yet this is a man who I believe understood the Bible correctly on this point:
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in His providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever He bestowed, His goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great.
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which He made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of His love. And if the knowledge of Him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, “Concerning the Divine Decrees,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 528)
Paul doesn’t retreat one step from the accusation that God determining who would be His makes God unjust. On the contrary, he goes on the offensive and buttresses his teaching about the unconstrained freedom of God in making choices that determine people’s lives.
Allusion in this part of the chapter to unbelieving Israel is muted but clear. So many Jews have failed to embrace the gospel because God has so willed it: as with Pharaoh, God has hardened them, and many of them are now vessels on whom God’s wrath rests.
Paul has explained in Romans 9:14-18, as well as in 9:19-23 that God’s righteousness (that is, His doing what is right) consists in His sovereign choosing of mercy for some and hardening for others, all for the purpose that His “name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” It is the most right thing for God to display Himself as God.
If we properly understand this God who has revealed Himself “we will be deeply sobered by the awful severity of God, humbled to the dust by the absoluteness of our dependence on His unconditional mercy, and irresistibly allured by the infinite treasury of His glory ready to be revealed to the vessels of glory” (John Piper, The Justification of God, 220).
May God help us to see His infinite value and excellence, and may He grow in us a passion for His glory like that passion He has for it.