A Vain Excuse
Rom 9:19-21 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
The objection is much along the lines previously dealt with in chapter three, where one said, "If our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?" Rom 3:5 and "If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Rom 3:7 Here in verse 19 the objection essentially presumes incorrectly that God holds people accountable for things over which they have no control. Is God unjust in hardening the heart of those who are persistently proud? Is God unjust in condemning the wicked? The presumption the critic makes is that he has no control over his behavior and attitude, much like today where people blame their misbehavior on the environment or other people or some uncontrollable psychological condition, anything other than taking responsibility for their own behavior.
It's interesting how Paul answers here. For he could just point out that it's their fault and not God's. There was a time when Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." John 9:39-41 If people were in fact ignorant, blind to sin, they would not be guilty of sin. If people were like pottery, or puppets, inanimate objects having no will of their own, they would not be guilty of sin. Because we all know that to hold someone accountable for things over which they have no control is unjust.
But instead Paul argues, OK, let's say you're pottery, you're puppets, you're inanimate objects. In that case what's your problem? Pottery does not answer back its maker. That fact that you are talking back to God demonstrates that you're not mere pottery, that you have a free will, and therefore your argument doesn't hold. But if you argue that you are mere pottery, isn't it true that the potter has the right to make any kind of pottery he wishes?
A person can't really invoke arguments of injustice if their premise is that they are merely a puppet. Issues of justice don't come into play when it comes to destroying inanimate objects.
The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources
Rom 9:19-21 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
The objection is much along the lines previously dealt with in chapter three, where one said, "If our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?" Rom 3:5 and "If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Rom 3:7 Here in verse 19 the objection essentially presumes incorrectly that God holds people accountable for things over which they have no control. Is God unjust in hardening the heart of those who are persistently proud? Is God unjust in condemning the wicked? The presumption the critic makes is that he has no control over his behavior and attitude, much like today where people blame their misbehavior on the environment or other people or some uncontrollable psychological condition, anything other than taking responsibility for their own behavior.
It's interesting how Paul answers here. For he could just point out that it's their fault and not God's. There was a time when Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." John 9:39-41 If people were in fact ignorant, blind to sin, they would not be guilty of sin. If people were like pottery, or puppets, inanimate objects having no will of their own, they would not be guilty of sin. Because we all know that to hold someone accountable for things over which they have no control is unjust.
But instead Paul argues, OK, let's say you're pottery, you're puppets, you're inanimate objects. In that case what's your problem? Pottery does not answer back its maker. That fact that you are talking back to God demonstrates that you're not mere pottery, that you have a free will, and therefore your argument doesn't hold. But if you argue that you are mere pottery, isn't it true that the potter has the right to make any kind of pottery he wishes?
A person can't really invoke arguments of injustice if their premise is that they are merely a puppet. Issues of justice don't come into play when it comes to destroying inanimate objects.
The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources
