Romans 9:21-22

9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay ¹  one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? ²  9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects ³  of wrath ⁴  prepared for destruction? ⁵ 

Romans 9:1

Israel’s Rejection Considered

9:1 ⁶ I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me ⁷  in the Holy Spirit –

Romans 2:8

2:8 but ⁸  wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition ⁹  and do not obey the truth but follow ¹⁰  unrighteousness.

Romans 2:2-3

2:2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth ¹¹  against those who practice such things. 2:3 And do you think, ¹²  whoever you are, when you judge ¹³  those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, ¹⁴  that you will escape God’s judgment?

[9:21]  ¹ tn Grk “Or does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump.”

[9:21]  ² tn Grk “one vessel for honor and another for dishonor.”

[9:22]  ³ tn Grk “vessels.” This is the same Greek word used in v. 21.

[9:22]  ⁴ tn Or “vessels destined for wrath.” The genitive ὀργῆς (orghs) could be taken as a genitive of destination.

[9:22]  ⁵ tn Or possibly “objects of wrath that have fit themselves for destruction.” The form of the participle could be taken either as a passive or middle (reflexive). ExSyn 417-18 argues strongly for the passive sense (which is followed in the translation), stating that “the middle view has little to commend it.” First, καταρτίζω (katartizw) is nowhere else used in the NT as a direct or reflexive middle (a usage which, in any event, is quite rare in the NT). Second, the lexical force of this verb, coupled with the perfect tense, suggests something of a “done deal” (against some commentaries that see these vessels as ready for destruction yet still able to avert disaster). Third, the potter-clay motif seems to have one point: The potter prepares the clay.

[9:1]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ tn Or “my conscience bears witness to me.”

[2:8]  ⁸ tn This contrast is clearer and stronger in Greek than can be easily expressed in English.

[2:8]  ⁹ tn Grk “those who [are] from selfish ambition.”

[2:8]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “are persuaded by, obey.”

[2:2]  ¹¹ tn Or “based on truth.”

[2:3]  ¹² tn Grk “do you think this,” referring to the clause in v. 3b.

[2:3]  ¹³ tn Grk “O man, the one who judges.”

[2:3]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “and do them.” The other words are supplied to bring out the contrast implied in this clause.