Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it,] Why hast thou made me thus?
(C) The Reply: Creative Sovereignty
20. Nay but ] Same word as Rom 10:18, and Luk 11:28; (E. V., “Yea, rather.”) Q. d., “ Rather than the position of a questioner, take that of a creature.”
man ] The word is, of course, emphatic.
the thing formed ] Lit. the thing moulded; the Potter and the Clay being in the writer’s thought. Here lies the force of the “ who art thou?” The case is not that of yielding to vastly greater power or subtler intellect, but of yielding to the Origin of your existence; to the Uncaused Cause of your conscience, will, affections, and all. The Sovereign is the Creator; are you, the Creature, really in a position to judge Him? This clause is nearly verbatim from Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9 (LXX.) “ Why hast thou made me thus? ” is not a quotation. In Isa 45:9, the words occur in a context of mercy. The mercy of God, as well as His severity, is sovereign and mysterious.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Nay but, O man … – To this objection the apostle replies in two ways; first, by asserting the sovereignty of God, and affirming that he had a right to do it Rom 9:20-21; and secondly, by showing that he did it according to the principles of justice and mercy, or that it was involved of necessity in his dispensing justice and mercy to mankind; Rom 9:22-24.
Who art thou … – Paul here strongly reproves the impiety and wickedness of arraigning God. This impiety appears,
(1) Because man is a creature of arraigning God. This impiety appears, Because man is a creature of God, and it is improper that he should arraign his Maker.
(2) He is unqualified to understand the subject. Who art thou? What qualifications has a creature of a day, a being just in the infancy of his existence; of so limited faculties; so perverse, blinded, and interested as man, to sit in judgment on the doings of the Infinite Mind? Who gave him the authority, or invested him with the prerogatives of a judge over his Makers doings?
(3) Even if man were qualified to investigate those subjects, what right has he to reply against God, to arraign him, or to follow out a train of argument tending to involve his Creator in shame and disgrace? No where is there to be found a more cutting or humbling reply to the pride of man than this. And on no subject was it more needed. The experience of every age has shown that this has been a prominent topic of objection against the government of God; and that there has been no point in the Christian theology to which the human heart has been so ready to make objections as to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God.
Repliest against God – Margin, Answerest again; or, disputest with God. The passage conveys the idea of answering again; or of arguing to the dishonor of God. It implies that when God declares his will, man should be still. God has his own plans of infinite wisdom, and it is not ours to reply against him, or to arraign him of injustice, when we cannot see the reason of his doings.
Shall the thing formed … – This sentiment is found in Isa 29:16; see also Isa 45:9. It was especially proper to adduce this to a Jew. The objection is one which is supposed to be made by a Jew, and it was proper to reply to him by a quotation from his own Scriptures. Any being has a right to fashion his work according to his own views of what is best; and as this right is not denied to people, we ought not to blame the infinitely wise God for acting in a similar way. They who have received every blessing they enjoy from him, ought not to blame him for not making them different.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 20. Nay but, O man, who art thou] As if he had said: Weak, ignorant man, darest thou retort on the infinitely good and righteous GOD? Reflect on thyself; and tell me, after thou hast abused the grace of God, and transgressed his laws, wilt thou cavil at his dispensations? God hath made, created, formed the Jewish nation; and shall the thing formed, when it hath corrupted itself, pretend to correct the wise and gracious Author of its being, and say, Why hast thou made me thus? Why hast thou constituted me in this manner? Thou hast done me wrong in giving me my being under such and such conditions.
Old John Goodwin’s note on this passage is at least curious: “I scarce (says he) know any passage of the Scripture more frequently abused than this. When men, in the great questions of predestination and reprobation, bring forth any text of Scripture which they conceive makes for their notion, though the sense which they put upon it be ever so uncouth and dissonant from the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, yet, if any man contradict, they frequently fall upon him with-Nay but, O man; who art thou? As if St. Paul had left them his heirs and successors in the infallibility of his spirit! But when men shall call a solid answer to their groundless conceits about the meaning of the Scriptures, a replying against God, it savours more of the spirit who was seen falling like lightning from heaven, than of His, who saw him in this his fall.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Here follows the answer to this cavil; which is either personal to the caviller, in this and the next verse, or real to the cavil, in the two following verses.
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? The apostle seems to speak these words with some warmth, as if his spirit and zeal was stirred at the sauciness of the caviller: q.d. Dost thou consider what thou art? Thou art but a man, a piece of living clay, a little breathing dust, a contemptible worm in comparison; and darest thou to word it with God, to dispute with thy Maker, to question or call him to an account? You may argue matters with your fellow creatures, but not with your Creator: see Isa 45:9,10, from whence this seems to be borrowed, and Job 40:2.
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? q.d. Shall the wood quarrel with the carpenter, the iron with the smith; or, as it is in the next verse, the clay with the potter?
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
20, 21. Nay but, O man, who art thouthat repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him thatformed it, Why hast thou made“didst thou make”
me thus? (Isa45:9).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?…. Or “answerest again to God”: some have been so weak and wicked as to suggest, that the apostle met with an objection he could not answer, or give a fair solution of, and therefore takes the method he does: but when the several things returned in answer by the apostle are considered, it will appear that he has taken the wisest method to silence such an audacious objector, and that he abundantly clears God from the charge of cruelty and unmercifulness. And he answers “first”, by putting the insolent creature in mind of what he was; “nay, but O man, who art thou?” c. Thou art man, and not God a creature, and not the Creator; and must not expect that he, thy Creator, will give an account of his matters to thee, or a reason why he does, this or the other thing. Thou art but a man, who in his best estate was vanity, being mutable; thou art a fallen sinful creature, and obnoxious to the wrath and displeasure of God for thy sins, and darest thou to open thy mouth against him? thou art a poor, foolish, and ignorant man, born like a wild ass’s colt, without understanding, and wilt thou take upon thee to confront, direct, or counsel the Most High, or tell him what is fitting to be done, or not done? “next” the apostle answers, by pointing out his folly and madness, in replying to God. To speak to God in behalf of a man’s self at the throne of grace, in the most submissive manner, for any mercy or favour wanted, is an high privilege, and it is a wonderful condescension in God to admit of; and when a man, a good man takes upon him to plead with God on the behalf of others, of a wicked people, a sinful nation, he ought to set before him the example and conduct of Abraham, who in a like case acknowledged himself to be but dust and ashes, and more than once entreated, that the Lord would not be angry at his importunity; but for a man to answer again to God, which a servant ought not to do to his master, to litigate a point with God, to dispute a matter with him, is the highest instance of arrogance and impudence: “woe unto him that striveth with his Maker, let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth”, Isa 45:9: with their equals, with men like themselves, but let no man dare to “contend with God”; if he should, “he cannot answer him one of a thousand”, Job 9:3; for “he is wise in heart”, in forming all his counsels, purposes, and decrees; “and mighty in strength”, to execute them; “who hath hardened himself against him and hath prospered?” Job 9:4. Another way the apostle takes in answering the objection is, by showing the absurdity of a creature’s wrangling with God about his make, and the circumstances in which he is made:
shall the thing formed, say unto him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? reference is had to Isa 45:9; Now as it would be a most absurd thing for the clay, was it capable of speaking, to say to the fashioner of it, why dost thou put me into such or such a shape and form? or for any piece of workmanship to say to the maker of it, he has no hands, no head, no judgment and skill; or for a child to say to its parents, what begettest thou, or what hast thou brought forth? so absurd and unreasonable is it, for any to say to God, why hast thou appointed me to such and such ends and purposes, and has brought me into being in such a manner, and under such circumstances? There is a story in the Talmud n, which may be pertinently produced here;
“it happened to R. Eleazar ben Simeon, of Migdal Gedur, that he went from his master’s house, and he was riding on an ass, and travelling by the sea side, and as he rejoiced exceedingly, and his heart was lifted up because he had learnt much of the law, there was joined to him a certain man that was very much deformed, and says to him, peace be upon thee Rabbi; but he did not return the salutation to him, but says to him “Raca”, how deformed is that man! perhaps all thy townsmen are as deformed as thee; he replied to him, I do not know, but go and say,
, “to the workman that made me”, how ugly is this vessel thou hast made, when he knew in himself that he has sinned; upon this the Rabbi dismounted his ass, and fell down before him, and said unto him, I entreat of thee forgive me; he said unto him, I cannot forgive thee, till thou goest “to the workman that made me”, and say, how ugly is this vessel which thou hast made.”
n T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 20. 2. Massechet Derech Eretz, c. 4. fol. 18. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Nay, but, O man, who art thou? ( , ?). “O man, but surely thou who art thou?” Unusual and emphatic order of the words, prolepsis of (thou) before (who) and (triple particle, , indeed, , therefore, , at least) at the beginning of clause as in Rom 10:18; Phil 3:8 contrary to ancient idiom, but so in papyri.
That repliest ( ). Present middle articular participle of double compound verb , to answer to one’s face (–) late and vivid combination, also in Lu 14:6, nowhere else in N.T., but in LXX.
The thing formed ( ). Old word (Plato, Aristophanes) from , to mould, as with clay or wax, from which the aorist active participle used here ( ) comes. Paul quotes these words from Isa 29:16 verbatim. It is a familiar idea in the Old Testament, the absolute power of God as Creator like the potter’s use of clay (Isa 44:8; Isa 45:8-10; Jer 18:6). expects a negative answer.
Why didst thou make me thus? ( ?). The original words in Isaiah dealt with the nation, but Paul applies them to individuals. This question does not raise the problem of the origin of sin for the objector does not blame God for that but why God has used us as he has, made some vessels out of the clay for this purpose, some for that. Observe “thus” (). The potter takes the clay as he finds it, but uses it as he wishes.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
O man. Man as man, not Jew.
That repliest [ ] . Only here and Luk 14:6. Lit., to contradict in reply : to answer by contradicting. Thus, in the case of the dropsical man (Luke 14.), Jesus answered [] the thought in the minds of the lawyers and Pharisees by asking, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath ?” Then He asked, “Who of you would refuse on the Sabbath to extricate his beast from the pit into which it has fallen?” And they were unable to answer Him in reply : to answer by contradicting Him. So here, the word signifies to reply to an answer which God had already given, and implies, as Godet observes, the spirit of contention.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Nay but, 0 man, who art thou,” (o anthrope, menoun ge su tis ei) “Nay, but rather, a man, who are you?” “It is morally and ethically improper for the created to find moral and ethical fault with the Creator or question his goodness or judgment in any matter.
2) “That repliest against God?” (ho antapokrinominos to theo) “The one passing judgment on God?” talking derogatory against God, who are you to do such? It is improper to adopt such a tone against or toward God, repulsive and objectionable, Rom 9:18; Should the child talk back, “sass” or act impudent toward the parent? The conclusion suggested is an emphatic no.
3) “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,” (me erei to plasma to plasanti) “The thing formed will not say to the one having formed (it),” talk back to, question the judgment of, will it? Should it? Is such not a matter of showing disdain, disrespect, or dishonor? Job considered such improper and refused to defy God’s judgment even under great sorrow and pain, Job 9:11-15; Job 33:12-13; Job 34:22-23.
4) “Why hast thou made me thus?” (ti me epoiesas houtos) “Why did you make me like this, will it?” This appears as a rhetoric question, suggesting “surely not;” This citation or allusion is first addressed to Israel, who questioned Moses and God’s goodness and judgment in bringing them from Egypt into the wilderness of Sinai; It is still a sentiment of man in rebellion against God, to reject or question all his counsel, Num 11:1-5; Psa 106:7; Psa 106:25; Psa 106:43; Pro 1:24-26; Pro 1:29-31.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
20. But, O man! who art thou? etc. (303) As it is a participle in Greek, we may read what follows in the present tense, who disputest, or contendest, or strivest in opposition to God; for it is expressed in Greek according to this meaning, — “Who art thou who enterest into a dispute with God?” But there is not much difference in the sense. (304) In this first answer, he does nothing else but beat down impious blasphemy by an argument taken from the condition of man: he will presently subjoin another, by which he will clear the righteousness of God from all blame.
It is indeed evident that no cause is adduced higher than the will of God. Since there was a ready answer, that the difference depends on just reasons, why did not Paul adopt such a brief reply? But he placed the will of God in the highest rank for this reason, — that it alone may suffice us for all other causes. No doubt, if the objection had been false, that God according to his own will rejects those whom he honors not with his favor, and chooses those whom he gratuitously loves, a refutation would not have been neglected by Paul. The ungodly object and say, that men are exempted from blame, if the will of God holds the first place in their salvation, or in their perdition. Does Paul deny this? Nay, by his answer he confirms it, that is, that God determines concerning men, as it seems good to him, and that, men in vain and madly rise up to contend with God; for he assigns, by his own right, whatever lot he pleases to what he forms.
But they who say that Paul, wanting reason, had recourse to reproof, cast a grievous calumny on the Holy Spirit: for the things calculated to vindicate God’s justice, and ready at hand, he was at first unwilling to adduce, for they could not have been comprehended; yea, he so modifies his second reason, that he does not undertake a full defence, but in such a manner as to give a sufficient demonstration of God’s justice, if it be considered by us with devout humility and reverence.
He reminds man of what is especially meet for him to remember, that is, of his own condition; as though he had said, — “Since thou art man, thou ownest thyself to be dust and ashes; why then doest thou contend with the Lord about that which thou art not able to understand?” In a word, the Apostle did not bring forward what might have been said, but what is suitable to our ignorance. Proud men clamour, because Paul, admitting that men are rejected or chosen by the secret counsel of God, alleges no cause; as though the Spirit of God were silent for want of reason, and not rather, that by his silence he reminds us, that a mystery which our minds cannot comprehend ought to be reverently adored, and that he thus checks the wantonness of human curiosity. Let us then know, that God does for no other reason refrain from speaking, but that he sees that we cannot contain his immense wisdom in our small measure; and thus regarding our weakness, he leads us to moderation and sobriety.
Does what is formed? etc. We see that Paul dwells continually on this, — that the will of God, though its reason is hid from us, is to be counted just; for he shows that he is deprived of his right, if he is not at liberty to determine what he sees meet concerning his creatures. This seems unpleasant to the ears of many. There are also those who pretend that God is exposed to great reproach were such a power ascribed to him, as though they in their fastidiousness were better divines than Paul, who has laid down this as the rule of humility to the faithful, that they are to admire the sovereignty of God, and not to estimate it by their own judgment.
But he represses this arrogance of contending with God by a most apt similitude, in which he seems to have alluded to Isa 45:9, rather than to Jer 18:6; for nothing else is taught us by Jeremiah, than that Israel was in the hand of the Lord, so that he could for his sins wholly break him in pieces, as a potter the earthen vessel. But Isaiah ascends higher, “Woe to him,” he says, “who speaks against his maker;” that is, the pot that contends with the former of the clay; “shall the clay say to its former, what doest thou?” etc. And surely there is no reason for a mortal man to think himself better than earthen vessel, when he compares himself with God. We are not however to be over-particular in applying this testimony to our present subject, since Paul only meant to allude to the words of the Prophet, in order that the similitude might have more weight. (305)
(303) “But” is not sufficiently emphatical here; μενοῦνγε; “yes, verily,” in Rom 10:18; “yea, rather,” in Luk 11:28; “doubtless,” in Phi 3:8; it may be rendered here, “nay, rather.” — Ed.
(304) “ Quis es qui contendas judicio cum Deo;” τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῳ Θεῳ “that repliest against God,” is the rendering of [ Macknight ] and [ Stuart ] ; “who enterest into a debate with God,” is what [ Doddridge ] gives. The verb occurs once in another place, Luk 14:6, and “answer again” is our version. [ Schleusner ] says that ἀντὶ prefixed to verbs is often redundant. In Job 16:8, this compound is used by the Septuagint simply in the sense of answering, for ענה He renders it here, “ cure Deo altercari — to quarrel, or, dispute with God.” — Ed.
(305) The words in Rom 9:20 are taken almost literally from Isa 29:16, only the latter clause is somewhat different; the sentence is, “μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι αὐτὸ οὐ σύ με ἔπλασας — shall what is formed say to its former, Thou hast not formed me?” This is a faithful rendering of the Hebrew.
Then the words in Rom 9:21 are not verbally taken from either of the two places referred to above; but the simile is adopted. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(20) Nay but, O man.The answer is not so much a solution of the intellectual difficulty, as an appeal to the religious sense to prevent it from being raised. That His dealings should be questioned at all is a breach of the reverence due to God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20. Nay Stemming the tide of Jewish cavil, the apostle first, in this verse, rebukes his spirit, and in the verses following refutes his assumptions.
Repliest against God We are guided at this point by the parallel passage Rom 3:4-5 where see notes. We there learn that the man does not reply against God, who (as the Arminian) maintains that “God is surely true, holy, and just, and therefore a course of injustice cannot be truly affirmed of him; and, when affirmed, is false.” Such is the apostle’s own course. To reply against God is to assume a false course as pursued by him, and to reproach him for it. This is the course of the predestinarian and the Jew.
The thing formed Extreme cases may be conceived in which the thing formed might complain of its maker. A child has fair claims upon the parent that beget him. There are many conceivable cases of treatment toward a creature which would be intensely unjust in a creator. (See note on Rom 3:4-5.) But the apostle, reasoning with a believer in the Jehovah of the Bible, has a right to exclude such extreme cases from the argument. The thing formed by such a Creator may be promptly arraigned for a query audaciously imputing unconditional predestination to God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘No but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me thus?” ’
Paul’s response to the questions is illuminating, both in what he does not say and what he does say. He does not attempt to marshal arguments which he could have used had he believed them, such as 1). that God acts on the basis of what He foresees in men (whether belief or unbelief), or 2). that God has some other way of saving Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah. These are arguments which some among modern man would put forward. But Paul seemingly does not accept them. Rather he simply declares by his questions put to the ‘man’, that he knows of no explanation, indicating thereby that he has no valid argument apart from what the Scriptures have stated. He then simply challenges whether they as human beings are in any position to reply against God, or disagree with Him. And he does it on the basis that the creature cannot say to his Creator, ‘why did you make me thus?’, which is a loose rendering of Isa 45:9. The Creator, in other words, has sovereign rights to do what He will with His creation which no one can deny, and He can choose to do with His creatures what He will.
‘O man.’ This signifies, in context, puny man as compared with the mighty God, as puny man seeks to contest what God chooses to do.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 9:20. Nay but, O man, &c. St. Paul shews here, that the nations of the world, who are by a better right in the hands and disposal of God, than the clay in the power of thepotter, may, without calling his justice in question, “be made great and glorious, or be pulled down or brought into contempt, as he pleases.” That he here speaks of men nationally, and not personally, in reference to their eternal state, is evident not only from the beginning of this chapter, where he expresses his concern for the rejection of the Jews, and from the instances that he brings of Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh: but it appears also very clearly from the verses immediately following; where, by the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, (keeping up the metaphor of the potter,) he manifestly means the nation of the Jews; who were now grown ripe for the destruction which God would bring upon them; and by vessels of mercy, the christian church, consisting of a small number of converted Jews, and the rest made up of Gentiles; who, together, were thenceforwards to be the people of God in this general sense, instead of the Jewish nation, Rom 9:24. The sense therefore of this and the following verses is this: “How darest thou, O man, to call God to account, and question his justice, in casting off his ancient people the Jews? What if God, willing to punish that sinful people, and to do it so as to make his power known and taken notice of, (and why might not he raise them up for that purpose, as well as Pharaoh and the Egyptians?)What, I say, if God bore with them a long time, even after they had deserved his wrath, as he did with Pharaoh, that his hand might be the more eminently visible in their destruction; and that also, at the same time, he might with the more glory make known his goodness and mercy to the Gentiles; whom, according to his purpose, he was ready to receive into the glorious state of being his people under the Gospel?” See Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 9:20 . ] Imo vero , here not without irony: Yea verily, O man (Rom 2:1 ), who art thou ( quantulus es ) who repliest against God? See on Luk 11:28 ; also Ast, Lex. Plat . II. p. 303. On , comp. Rom 14:4 ; Plato, Gorg . p. 452 B: , ; Paul does not give a refutation of the ., but he repudiates the question as unwarranted; “ abrumpit quaestionem” (Melancthon), and that wholly from the standpoint of the entirely unlimited divine omnipotence, on which he has placed himself in the whole of the present connection, and consistently with that standpoint.
.] For in . there is contained an oppositional reply , namely, to God’s finding fault , not to the saying of Scripture, Rom 9:17 (Hofmann), which the apostle’s present train of thought has already left behind. On the expression, comp. Luk 14:6 ; Jdg 5:29 ; Job 16:8 ; Job 32:12 . The word is not found in the Greek writers. But , says Paul, as little belongs to man against God, as to the thing formed belongs the question addressed to its former: Why hast thou made me thus (as I am)? This comparison is logically correct (in opposition to Usteri, Lehrbegr . p. 269), since the tertium comparationis generally is the constituting of the quality . As the moulder produces the quality of the vessel formed by him according to his own free will, so God constitutes the moral quality (fitted for blessedness or not so) of men as He will. Only when it is maintained that the comparison with the thing formed must properly refer only to the first formation of men, and not to the subsequent ethical moulding of those created (as in Pharaoh’s case, whom God hardened), can its logical correctness be denied. But Paul wrote in a popular form, and it is to do him injustice to press his simile more than he himself, judging by the tenor of the entire connection, would have it pressed. Glckler (following Pareus) finds in . . . and Rom 9:21 an argumentatio a minore ad majus: “If not even in the case of an effigy can such a question be addressed to its former, how much less can man, etc.” But this also is to be quite laid aside, and we must simply abide by the conception of a simile, since that question on the part of the thing formed cannot certainly be conceived as really taking place, and since the simile itself is of so frequent occurrence in the O. T., that Paul has doubtless employed it by way of reminiscence from that source. See Isa 29:16 ; Isa 45:9 ; Jer 18:6 ; Wis 15:7 ; Sir 36:13 .Rom 9:21-23Rom 9:21-23 also show that Paul sets forth God Himself under the image of the potter. According to Hofmann, the sense of the question resolves itself into a complaint over the destiny , for which the creature is created by God. But the contextual notion of is not that of creation , but that of preparation, adjustment (Rom 9:21-22 ), correlative to the making of the potter, who does not create his vessels, but forms and fashions ( ) them thus or thus; and simply specifies the mode of the making: in such shape , in such a kind of way, that I have not issued from thy hands as one of another mould. Comp. Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 584]. It is the of the , which presents itself in the result .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it , Why hast thou made me thus?
Ver. 20. That repliest against God ] Gr. , chattest and wordest it with him?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rom 9:20 . is not used contemptuously, but it is set intentionally over against : the objector is reminded emphatically of what he is, and of the person to whom he is speaking. It is not for a man to adopt this tone toward God . For cf. Rom 10:18 , Phi 3:8 : the idea is, So far from your having the right to raise such objections, it is rather for me to ask, Who art thou? etc. Paul, as has been observed above, does not refute, but repels the objection. It is inconsistent, he urges, with the relation of the creature to the Creator. . . . Surely the thing formed shall not say, etc. The first words of the quotation are from Isa 29:16 : ; ; The fact that the words originally refer to Israel as a nation, and to God’s shaping of its destiny, does not prove in the least that Paul is dealing with nations, and not with individuals, here. He never pays any attention to the original application of the O.T. words he uses; and neither Moses nor Pharaoh nor the person addressed as is a nation. The person addressed is one who feels that the principle enunciated in Rom 9:18 must be qualified somehow, and so he makes the protest against it which Paul attempts in this summary fashion to repress. A man is not a thing, and if the whole explanation of his destiny is to be sought in the bare will of God, he will say, Why didst Thou make me thus? and not even the authority of Paul will silence him.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
repliest against. Greek. antapokrinomai. Only here and Luk 14:6. Compare App-104and App-122:3.
Shall. Question preceded by me, as Rom 9:14.
thing formed. Greek. plasma. Only here.
formed. Greek. plasso. Only here and 1Ti 2:13. Quoted from Isa 45:9.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Rom 9:20.[113] , O man) weak, ignorant of righteousness [i.e. the true way of justification].- , …) Isa 29:16. ; , . The same prophet, Isa 45:9, : , , . ; Shall ye not be reckoned as the potters clay? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Thou hast not formed me? Isa 45:9, Shall the clay say to the potter, what art thou doing, that thou dost not work, thou hast no hands? Shall the thing formed answer Him that formed it?-(Vers. LXX.)
[113] , but truly) This answer savours of a severe and somewhat vehement nature. Men of fierce dispositions must certainly be restrained; but the sweetest foundation of the whole argument is subsequently disclosed to them that are called, ver. 24. In this discussion, he who merely cuts off a portion of it from the rest, must be perplexed and stick at trifles; but he proceeds easily, who thoroughly weighs the whole connection of chapters 9, 10, 11-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 9:20
Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?-This is a sharp reproof of the captious complaint against the Creator. Man, with a just understanding of his own weakness and shortsightedness, and Gods wisdom and goodness, would say, God knows all things, God is good, and the Judge of all the earth will do right; so recognize that God understands, while man does not, and trust God even when he does not see the way. Indeed, this is the only frame of true faith.
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?-[The intent in this is to stop the mouth of the objector who leaves an implication of wrong on the part of God in bestowing favors on some which he withholds from others.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
O man: Rom 2:1, Mic 6:8, 1Co 7:16, Jam 2:20
who art: Job 33:13, Job 36:23, Job 38:2, Job 38:3, Job 40:2, Job 40:5, Job 40:8, Job 42:2-6, Mat 20:15
repliest: or, answerest again, Job 16:3, Tit 2:9, or, disputes with God, 1Co 1:20, 1Ti 6:5
Shall: Isa 29:16, Isa 45:9-11
Reciprocal: Gen 2:7 – dust 2Sa 16:10 – Who shall Job 1:22 – charged God foolishly Job 4:17 – Shall mortal Job 9:3 – he will contend Job 9:32 – not a man Job 16:21 – plead Job 34:23 – that he Job 34:33 – Should Psa 78:19 – Yea Psa 106:37 – devils Ecc 6:10 – neither Ecc 8:4 – What Isa 10:15 – the ax Isa 64:8 – are the clay Jer 18:4 – made of clay was marred in Eze 16:63 – and never Eze 18:2 – mean Eze 18:25 – way Dan 4:35 – What Zep 1:7 – thy Zec 2:13 – Be Mal 3:13 – What Mat 20:13 – I do Mat 25:24 – I knew Luk 4:25 – many Luk 12:14 – Man Act 11:17 – what Rom 3:7 – why yet Rom 14:4 – Who Jam 1:13 – no man Jam 4:12 – who
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Rom 9:20. Nay but. An unusual word, meaning, Yes indeed; here used, either with a slight tone of irony, or, more probably, of indignant rebuke. I do not examine the intrinsic verity of what you allege; but, be that as it may, this much is certain, that you are not in a position to dispute with God(Godet).
O man. This address suggests the contrast between man and God, afterwards brought out more fully.
Who art thou. How great art thou?
That repliest against God. The peculiar word here used suggests an answer given to a previous response, i.e., to Gods response (finding fault, Rom 9:19) to mans sin.
Shall the thing formed, etc. We have here an echo of Isa 24:16 (not a quotation). The thing formed, as a vessel is moulded. Hence the question has no reference to original creation, but to subsequent ethical moulding. The nature of the clay and lump is not yet suggested. The original indicates that a negative answer is expected.
Why didst thou make me thus? The word make in accordance with what precedes; is to be referred to preparing, adjusting, etc., not to creating. The folly, rather than the error of the objector, is thus rebuked.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Rom 9:20-21. Nay but, O man Little, impotent, ignorant man; Who art thou In all thy boasted wisdom and penetration; that repliest against God? That accusest God of injustice, for himself fixing the terms on which he will show mercy? or for leaving those to the hardness of their hearts who obstinately and perseveringly refuse or neglect to comply with those terms? Or, (which may be rather intended,) who impiously formest arguments against God, on account of his distributing to some nations, or some individuals, favours which he denies to others; not considering that privileges which God is obliged to give to none, he may, without injustice, withhold from whom he will? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only on the terms of repentance and faith? Or, Why was I not entitled by birth, to advantages which others were born to? The apostle alludes here to Isa 45:9, where, in answer to the objections and cavils of the unbelieving Jews, disposed to murmur against God, and arraign the wisdom and justice of his dispensations, in regard to them, the prophet asks similar questions; implying that nations, who derive their existence and continuance merely from the power and goodness of God, have no right to find fault with him, because he hath denied them this or that advantage, or because he bears with the wickedness of some nations for a long time, while he instantly punishes others. Hath not the potter power over the clay And, much more, hath not God power over his creatures; to appoint one vessel Namely, the believer; to honour, and another Namely, the unbeliever; to dishonour? The power of the potter over the clay is the similitude which God himself used by Jeremiah for illustrating that power and sovereignty whereby he is entitled to make some nations great and happy, and to punish and destroy others. See Jer 18:6-7; where every reader must be sensible that nothing is said concerning individuals, some to be saved, and some to be damned, by an exercise of absolute sovereignty. It is his power and sovereignty in the disposal of nations only, that is described by the figure of the potter. To make of the same lump one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour The same lump signifies the mass of mankind, out of which particular nations are formed; consequently the one vessel means, not any particular person, but a nation or community. And a vessel to honour, or an honourable use, means a nation made great and happy by the favour and protection of God, and by the advantages which he confers on them. On the other hand, a vessel to dishonour, signifies a nation which God depresses, by denying it the advantages bestowed on others, or by depriving it of the advantages which it formerly enjoyed, Act 13:17. The meaning of this question is, May not God, without injustice, exalt one nation, by bestowing privileges upon it, and depress another, by taking away the privileges which it has long enjoyed. Macknight. If we survey, says an eminent writer, the right which God has over us in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views; as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all, or as their moral Governor and Judge. God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind: these, and numberless other circumstances, are, doubtless, ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But Gods methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are clearly revealed, and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works; he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. Therefore, though he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, (that is, suffers to be hardened, in consequence of their obstinate wickedness,) yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 20. Most commentators do not hold that in the following answer Paul comes seriously to discuss the objection. Abrumpit quaestionem, says Melanchthon. Holsten observes that Paul raises the question, not to resolve it, which would be impossible, but to crush it. We acknowledge that in Rom 9:19-20 Paul pleads solely man’s incompetency to discuss the dealings of God. But we shall see that he does not stop there, and that he enters more profoundly into the marrow of the question than is generally thought. It would be surprising, indeed, if a conclusion not-to-be received should be found to be the last word of Paul’s logic. It would have been better for him in that case not to have made his interlocutor bring him to such a strait.
The particle , translated by much rather, is omitted by the Greco-Latins; wrongly, without doubt. It falls into three words: , certainly; , therefore, and , at least; that is to say, what follows remains in any case true, though all the rest should be false. Hence: much more certainly still; comp. Php 3:8 (much more). It therefore signifies here: I do not examine the intrinsic truth of what thou allegest; but, however that may be, what is more certain is, that thou art not in a position to dispute with God. The address: O man! reminds the adversary of the reason of his incompetency; it is his absolute inferiority in relation to the Creator. The exclamation , O man, is placed by the Byzs. at the beginning of the sentence, but by the Alexs. after ; the former is undoubtedly preferable. For the address: O man! justifies the use of this particle; and the two terms man and God placed, the one at the beginning of the sentence, the other at the end, form a better antithesis. The term does not mean simply: to reply; but, as is proved by the only parallel in the N. T. (Luk 14:6): to reply to a reply, to make rejoinder, as it were. God, indeed, had already answered once in the previous sayings. This word implies the spirit of the contest.
The comparison of the relation between God and man to that between the vessel and the potter seems logically defective. Man free and responsible cannot be a mere instrument in the hands of God. Moreover, endowed as he is with sensibility to pleasure and pain, he cannot be manipulated like worthless matter. And certainly, if the question addressed by the vessel to the potter: Why hast thou made me thus? signified: Why hast thou created me good clay or bad clay? and in the application to man’s relation to God: Why hast thou created me with the disposition to good or to evil? the comparison would have no meaning. For the potter does not commit the absurdity of holding the clay responsible for its superior or inferior quality. But the question is not in the least about the production of the clay, and consequently about its qualities, but solely about the use which is made of it by the potter. He does not create the clay; he takes it as he finds it, and adapts it as best he can to the different uses he proposes to himself. And besides, it is not the yet shapeless clay which asks: Why hast thou made me thus (with or without such or such qualities)? it is the fully manufactured vessel ( ) which thus interrogates him who has given it its present form ( ). Consequently, in the application made of this to the relation between man and God, this same question does not signify: Why hast Thou created me good or evil?in that case the question could not be summarily set aside by Paulbut: Why, in the development of Thy work here below, hast Thou assigned me an honorable use (by favoring me with Thy grace, like Moses) or a vile use (by hardening me like Pharaoh)? Why does such a man serve the end of Thy glory by his salvation; such another the end of Thy glory by his dishonor? This is the question in regard to which Paul reminds his Israelitish disputant of man’s incompetency as before God. As it belongs only to the potter, in virtue of the knowledge he has of his art, to determine the use which he shall make of the different parts of the mass in his hands to extract from each the best result possible, so it belongs to God alone to assign to the different portions of humanity, to the Jews no less than to the rest of men, the use which suits Him best, with a view to His final aim. The question whether, in determining the use of one and another, He will act without rhyme or reason, or whether, on the contrary, He will adapt the use made of each to His moral predispositions, finds no place in the mind of any one who understands that God’s perfections always act in harmony, and that consequently His power is ever the servant of His goodness, justice, and wisdom. As that which justifies the power of the potter over the lump of clay is not only the superiority of his strength, but that of his understanding; so, with stronger reason, what explains the sovereignty of God and His right over mankind is not only His almightiness, but His supreme understanding, and His infinite moral perfection. And what follows, Rom 9:22-24, proves that such is the view of the apostle. For to what purpose are the expressions , willing (Rom 9:22), and , that (Rom 9:23), if not to bring out, as we shall see, God’s perfect wisdom in the choice of His ends and the employment of His means? It is obvious, therefore, that the use God makes of man at a given moment (a Pharaoh, for example, as a vessel of dishonor), far from excluding his moral liberty, supposes and involves it. For the honor or dishonor to which God turns him in the execution of His work is not independent, as appears from this example, of the attitude taken by man in relation to God. The work of the skilful potter is not the emblem of an arbitrary use of strength; but, on the contrary, of a deliberate and intelligent employment of the matter at his disposal. Such is the apostle’s complete view. But it is quite true, as Lange says: When man goes the length of making to himself a god whom he affects to bind by his own rights, God then puts on His majesty, and appears in all His reality as a free God, before whom man is a mere nothing, like the clay in the hand of the potter. Such was Paul’s attitude when acting as God’s advocate, in his suit with Jewish Pharisaism. This is the reason why he expresses only one side of the truth. The following passage, ver. Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:21, will show that he is very far from mistaking or forgetting the other.
The , or, of Rom 9:21, means: Or, if it were otherwise, it must be admitted the potter has not?…Comp. Mat 20:15. The genitive , of the lump of clay, is dependent not on , the potter, but on , power: the power which he has to use the clay. The subject, the potter, is placed between the two words, the better, as it were, to command them.
What does the lump represent? Some think that it is the people of Israel, and that God is described as having the right to make them either His elect people, or a rejected nation. This meaning breaks down on Rom 9:23-24, where we see that the vessels unto honor are elected from among the Gentiles as well as from among the Jews. The lump therefore represents the whole of humanity, not humanity as God creates it, but in the state in which He finds it every moment when He puts it to the service of His kingdom. This state includes for each individual the whole series of free determinations which have gone to make him what he is. Let not Israel therefore say to God: Thou hast no right to make of me anything else than a vessel of honor; and Thou hast no right to make of that other body, the Gentiles, anything else than a base vessel. It belongs to God Himself to decide, according to His wisdom, the part which He will assign to every human being. Comp. 2Ti 2:20-21, where the words: If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, show clearly the truth of the standpoint which we have just expounded.
The forms , , might be explained as a remnant of the most ancient form of the Greek article; but it is perhaps more correct to admit an ellipsis: , , etc.
Let us add, that the figure here developed by Paul is familiar to the writers of the O. T. (Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9-10; Jer 18:6, etc.), and thus had the force of a quotation. Application of the figure, Rom 9:22-24.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Nay but [One word in Greek,: viz., the particle menounge. “This particle is,” says Hodge, “often used in replies, and is partly concessive and partly corrective, as in Luk 11:28; where it is rendered, yea, rather; in Rom 10:18; yes, verily. It may here, as elsewhere, have an ironical force. Sometimes it is strongly affirmative, as in Phi 3:8, and at others introduces, as here, a strong negation or repudiation of what has been said.” “I do not examine the intrinsic verity of what you allege, but, be that as it may, this much is certain, that you are not in a position to dispute with God”–Godet], O man [“Man” stands at the beginner and “God” at the end of the clause to emphasize the contrast. Man, thou feeble morsel of sinful dust, wilt thou wrangle with God!], who art thou that repliest against God? [“That chattest and wordest it with him” (Trapp). “Repliest” signifies an answer to an answer. It suggests, to those familiar with legal parlance, the declaration and answer, the replication and rejoinder, the rebutter and surrebutter to the limits both of human impudence and divine patience. Before answering the objection, Paul, therefore, felt it necessary to rebuke the impious presumption of the objector. It is permissible to fathom and understand what God reveals about himself, but it is not allowable for us, out of our own sense of justice, arrogantly and confidently to fix and formulate what principles must guide God in his judging. To do this is to incur the censure meted out to Job (Job 38:41). “No man,” says Haldane, “has a right to bring God to trial.” Man’s understanding is not adequate to such a task.] Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? [In the Greek the form of the question indicates that a negative answer is expected. The question is not a quotation, but rather “an echo” of Isa 29:16 and Isa 45:9 . “Formed” implies, not creation, but subsequent ethical moulding. God does not create us evil, but we are born into a world which, if not resisted, will form us thus. This is the actual work of God in the case. If we find ourselves formed after the pattern of evil, can we, in the light of all that he has done in the gospel, censure God for our life-result? Being insensate, the wood can not quarrel with the carpenter, nor the iron with the smith. Being sensate, and knowing the grace of God, and his own free will, man also is silent, and can render no complaint. The free will of man is an offset to the insensibility of the wood and iron, and makes their cases equal, or, legally speaking, “on all fours.” Inanimate material can not complain of malformation, for it lacks understanding of the facts; but man, having understanding, likewise can not complain, for the malformation was his own free choice. Speaking mathematically, the “free will” cancels the “lack of understanding,” and leaves the animate and the inanimate equal, and therefore alike silent as to the results of the processes of moulding.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
20. O vain man, who art thou that repliest against God? Whether shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 20
Who art thou, &c. It is remarkable that, while the difficulties which occur in the discussion of other subjects, in the word of God, are often fully explained, in this instance, no attempt is made to answer the objector. He is simply silenced.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:20 {17} Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? {18} Shall the thing {u} formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?
(17) The apostle does not answer that it is not God’s will, or that God does not either reject or elect according to his pleasure, which thing the wicked call blasphemy, but he rather grants his adversary both the antecedents, that is, that it is God’s will, and that is must of necessity so happen, yet he denies that God is therefore to be thought an unjust avenger of the wicked: for seeing that it appears by manifest proof that this is the will of God, and his doing, what impudency is it for man, who is but dust and ashes, to dispute with God, and as it were to call him into judgment? Now if any man say that the doubt is not so dissolved and answered, I answer, that there is no surer demonstration in any matter, because it is grounded upon this principle, that the will of God is the rule of righteousness.
(18) An amplification of the former answer, taken from a comparison, by which it also appears that God’s determinate counsel is set by Paul as the highest of all causes: so that it depends not in any way on the second causes, but rather shapes and directs them.
(u) This similitude agrees very properly to the first creation of mankind.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
In the first place it is presumptuous for human beings, the objects of divine judgment, to sit in judgment on their Judge. Judging is God’s prerogative, not ours. Creatures have no right to complain about their Creator’s behavior.
". . . men are not lost because they are hardened; they are hardened because they are lost; they are lost because they are sinners." [Note: Newell, p. 371.]