 |  |
The Apostle's answer to the question of Rom. 9: 19 is a stern reminder that no
criminal at the bar, no one who lives only by mercy, no creature in the presence of the
Creator can dare to question the righteousness of any of His actions.
It is noteworthy that throughout the argument of Rom. 9: the Apostle meets all
cavils and questionings by an appeal to O.T. Scripture. Should the Jew object to this, he
would immediately cut the ground from under his own feet. The O.T. was decisive.
When dealing with Gentile hearers, the Apostle sometimes "speaks after the manner of
men", using familiar illustrations--such as the bondage and freedom of slaves, the games
and the prize. But here his appeal is to the O.T., which emphasizes again the strongly
Jewish character of chapters 9:-11:
So, the illustration that follows of the potter and the clay is taken from Isa. 29: 16
and 45: 9. Here, once again, let us keep in mind that the Apostle is not advancing
doctrine at the moment, but answering the cavils of his opponent. To take the figure of
"clay" from this verse, and to argue from it concerning "free-will" is not treating the
passage fairly. Man is very different from a piece of clay. He is a responsible being; he
can be put under law; he can be rewarded or punished. The Apostle is using the
illustration of the clay here to show his opponent how unreasonable are his objections to
the sovereignty of God. Moreover, in the words of verse 21, "Of the same lump", he
refutes all charges against the righteousness of God, showing that between the saved
Israelite and the condemned Egyptian "there is no difference". The figure of "the same
lump" is, moreover, taken from an O.T. passage, and is probably used by the Apostle to
counteract any tendency to fatalism that might possibly be produced by the preceding
argument of the potter and the clay.
If one reads the first four verses of Jer. 18: and stops there, one might proceed to
argue that God assumed responsibility for the failure of Israel, just as the clay was marred
in the hands of the potter. But if we lay aside our reasonings (not our reason, which is
quite a different thing) and allow the Lord to draw the inference, we shall see that no
doctrinal question as to human responsibility is involved, and no idea that God is the
Author of Israel's failure. The only point that is picked out and expounded is the Lord's
right to treat all nations as He sees fit (Jer. 18: 6-10). Leaving these figures, the
Apostle proceeds to speak in more open terms:
"What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured
with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might
make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had afore prepared
unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
(Rom. 9: 22-24).
The difference between the two "vessels" here is inescapable. The vessels of wrath
are endured with much longsuffering, and are "fitted to destruction". How different are
the words concerning the vessels of mercy, "which He had afore prepared unto glory".
He did not fit the vessels of wrath for perdition by some eternal decree; they fitted
themselves. The saved, however, did not by any means fit themselves for glory; the Lord