Romans 9:20

9:20 But who indeed are you – a mere human being ¹  – to talk back to God? ²  Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” ³ 

Romans 9:1

Israel’s Rejection Considered

9:1 ⁴ I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me ⁵  in the Holy Spirit –

Colossians 1:16

1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, ⁶  whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.

James 2:20

2:20 But would you like evidence, ⁷  you empty fellow, ⁸  that faith without works is useless? ⁹ 

[9:20]  ¹ tn Grk “O man.”

[9:20]  ² tn Grk “On the contrary, O man, who are you to talk back to God?”

[9:20]  ³ sn A quotation from Isa 29:16; 45:9.

[9:1]  ⁴ sn Rom 9:1–11:36. These three chapters are among the most difficult and disputed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. One area of difficulty is the relationship between Israel and the church, especially concerning the nature and extent of Israel’s election. Many different models have been constructed to express this relationship. For a representative survey, see M. Barth, The People of God (JSNTSup), 22-27. The literary genre of these three chapters has been frequently identified as a diatribe, a philosophical discussion or conversation evolved by the Cynic and Stoic schools of philosophy as a means of popularizing their ideas (E. Käsemann, Romans, 261 and 267). But other recent scholars have challenged the idea that Rom 9–11 is characterized by diatribe. Scholars like R. Scroggs and E. E. Ellis have instead identified the material in question as midrash. For a summary and discussion of the rabbinic connections, see W. R. Stegner, “Romans 9.6-29 – A Midrash,” JSNT 22 (1984): 37-52.

[9:1]  ⁵ tn Or “my conscience bears witness to me.”

[1:16]  ⁶ tn BDAG 579 s.v. κυριότης 3 suggests “bearers of the ruling powers, dominions” here.

[2:20]  ⁷ tn Grk “do you want to know.”

[2:20]  ⁸ tn Grk “O empty man.” Here the singular vocative ἄνθρωπε (anqrwpe, “man”) means “person” or even “fellow.” Cf. BDAG 82 s.v. ἄνθρωπος 8 which views this as an instance of rhetorical address in a letter; the pejorative sense is also discussed under the previous heading (7).

[2:20]  ⁹ tc Most witnesses, including several important ones (א A C² P Ψ 33 Ï sy bo), have νεκρά (nekra, “dead”) here, while Ì⁷⁴ reads κενή (kenh, “empty”). Both variants are most likely secondary, derived from ἀργή (argh, “useless”). The reading of the majority is probably an assimilation to the statements in vv. 17 and 26, while Ì⁷⁴’s reading picks up on κενέ (kene) earlier in the verse. The external evidence (B C* 323 945 1739 sa) for ἀργή is sufficient for authenticity; coupled with the strong internal evidence for the reading (if νεκρά were original, how would ἀργή have arisen here and not in vv. 17 or 26?), it is strongly preferred.