Introduction

Romans 9 is one of the most straightforward passages in the Bible concerning the greatness of God in His (righteous) sovereignty in contrast with the smallness of man in his (sinful)frailty. The doctrine presented here is direct, clear, plain and awesome. As we read these words, we have a sense of being before Jehovah's awe inspiring throne where we bow with sacred joy. It is this sovereign who "brought us to his fold again." There we say to Him, "firm as a rock thy truth must stand" and "in thy truth our feet must walk." These precise threads of truth are part of a larger whole of the biblical call to holiness, to practical holiness of life across the board (as we saw last week; we are called to humble holiness in all stations of life and this pertains in a distinct way to husbands, cf. Eph. 1:4; 4:1-2; 5:15-6:4).

The plainness of the passage is seen in the answers given to common objections raised against Christian faith. For example, verses 14-18 answer the complaint of injustice raised against the sovereign election to salvation of some descendents of Abraham and not others. Paul's answer is striking because he first says it cannot be unjust because it is taught in Scripture (God says, Scripture says, vs. 15, 17). Furthermore, the passages he cites show that justice is not the bottom line for if it were then no one would receive mercy and all would be hardened. Thus verse 18, "God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden."

Justice is not violated. God is righteous, faithful, and merciful. That is our hope.

But "the flesh storms" (Calvin) and clamors against God all the more. It appears that when the direct charge of injustice is answered then the opponents of sovereign election raise an indirect charge of injustice. There seems to be two things at work in verse 19: a shifting of blame from man to God. Why should we be blamed? If mercy depends on His choice alone and if hardening depends on His choice alone, then we merely do His irresistible will and He punishes "His own work in us" (Calvin). We can hear excuse-making in the fog of blame-shifting. The hope is to get off the hook by putting God on it.

The simple answer that could be given is that it is sinners who are hardened in their sinning and who are blameworthy at every step; so, that's why God blames them. He is thus true and just. But that is not Paul's reply. Instead, Paul says "God has every right." He has every right to assign blame and to punish those He has hardened, those who cannot resist His hardening will. In his reply, Paul challenges the objection and affirms the glory of God. His answer is that God has every right and He exercises it for His own glory.

1A. First, consider how Paul challenges the objection.  He denies and affirms. He gives a negative claim then a positive claim.

1B. Negatively

Negatively, Paul says that man has absolutely no rights before God. "Who are you O man to talk back to God" (v. 20).

How is the objector talking back to God? He raises objection to what God says and what Scripture says. God has talked and the point is clearly presented. Then man talks back to what God has said. He complains against God when he complains against God's sovereign election plainly stated in the word of God. There is a tone in this blame-shifting: it's back talk, an insolent retort and disrespectful speech.

What is the objector implying when he asks, "why did you make me like this?" (v. 20)? He implies that he is equal to or better than God. He has forgotten that God is the Creator and he is the creature. Thus Paul says, "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this?'"

By sticking close to the context, we can define "being made like this." It has to allude to God as Creator and Lord of all so that we have to acknowledge that it is His plan and control of all things that governs why things are like they are. But it also must refer to the hardening of some. The effect is this: "why did you harden me (20b), and why do you blame me for the actions I do being unable to resist your will?" (20a).

Note that the "why does God" is really "why did you." This is all back talk spoken directly to God.

Here is the bottom line: forgetting/denying who God is as Creator and sustainer of all, the objector says in effect, "who do you think you are to tell me and to rule over me, don't you know who I am, can't you come to terms with my rights?" (clarity exposes folly)

And Paul pointedly replies to this whole posture by saying "you have no rights before God, the creature has no right to complain against the Creator, the sinner has no right to complain of being left in his sin, judged, and hardened." Who are you O man-who do you think you are? God's equal? God's superior? You have no right to raise this objection.

Emphasis is placed on the great distance that exists between man and God. Consider the great expanse that exists between God and yourself, between His greatness and your smallness. His thoughts and ways are far above your thoughts and ways as the heavens are far above the earth! Therefore, you have absolutely no rights before Him. You cannot raise even the slightest complaint. You must bow in "reverential silence" before the sovereign majesty of God. You have no right.

2B. Positively

This is where Paul affirms that God has every right. To make this claim stick he uses the illustration of the potter and the clay (v. 21). Obviously, God is represented as the potter (Creator, former) and man is the clay (creature, thing formed). The potter has every right to make whatever he chooses from the same lump of clay. He has the right to make some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use. It is totally up to the potter to decide to make a beautiful piece of art or a roughly hued ash tray, a useful drinking cup or a spittoon.

The context keeps us from thinking something like this: God creates some people to be sinners and others to be saints; He creates some people for heaven and some for hell. It is better to work from the context of the hardening and the showing of mercy to people who are sinners already. Sin is presupposed in all this language. Thus, the point is that God has every right to take from the same sinful clay and make some vessels of mercy (vessels that present beautiful art) and other vessels of hardening, reprobation, hatred, and judgment.

It is absurd for man to complain against God. It is just as absurd as clay demanding to be made into one thing versus another or complaining about being made this way rather than that way. It is absurd for the clay to stand in judgment on the potter! We have to say, "have thine own way Lord" and this is not giving God the right over us; it is acknowledging His right (the song has to carefully filtered and sanctified by this acknowledgment lest any thought of the clay dictating the work of the potter intrude).

When this complaint is raised to God's sovereign work that is clearly spoken to us in His word, Paul responds by saying, "who do you think you are before the throne of God?" Thus, he concludes: "you have no right to this attitude or speech toward what God says and does and God has every right to do and say what He decides, whether to show mercy or to harden, whether to make a vessel of noble use or a vessel of common use. You have no claim upon God. He is not indebted to you. He is self-existent and independent. He sits on the throne of His sovereignty and His kingship rules over all. He does according to His will in the armies of heaven and amongst the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay His hand.

2A. Consider how Paul affirms the glory of God (22-29)

In overview, notice that Paul uses a question/quotation format. He asks two thought provoking questions. These are of such a nature that the answers become obvious once you think about the questions in light of the quotations. So let's follow the line of thought. The first question is the platform for the second. The second question grows immediately out of the first. This connection is indicated by the connective "this." The first question leads to the second. Notice also that the "if then" structure implies "and He did" in both questions. What if…and as a matter of fact, He did, so what must you conclude? Thus each question can be rewritten as a statement or premise in an argument. The focus shifts from one who will say (v. 19) to us (by v. 24).

1B. The two premises.

1C. The first premise.

The hardening of sinners unto eternal wrath comes about in history through the exercise of great patience on God's part and it is has the ultimate purpose of manifesting His power. By power is surely meant His authority, particularly, His sovereign and righteous authority displayed in the wrath of His judgment. Virtues and perfections of God are being displayed.

Keeping the flow of thought in mind, this means that the vessels chosen for the common use of being recipients of His wrath serve to display the righteousness of God that is violated, outraged, and vindicated in judgment. This is remarkable in the middle of responding to this complaint because the hardening complained about is a manifestation of righteousness!

2C. The second premise.

1D. The second premise builds on the first.

Patient but firm judgment, hardening, hatred, wrath and destruction that displays righteous authority (or sovereign righteousness or righteous sovereignty) serves a more ultimate end: "to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" (v. 23). The ultimate end in hardening and showing mercy is stressed again: it is for God's glory (as in v. 17 but more explicit here).

2D. There is a shift in the literary audience

In verse 24, Paul shifts from addressing the objector to addressing his primary audience all along, the family of God (even us). Paul cannot continue in the third person regarding the objects of mercy because "they" (3^rd person) are us (1^st person) or "we is them" ("we are them"). So who are we? We are people effectually called and we are from both Jewish and Gentile descent according to the flesh. Because we are so accustomed to this fact, it bears repeating. There was once a national particularism in which God dealt with the nation of Israel in a special way in contrast to the nations; they only were loved and chosen (Deut. 7:6, chosen …out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people; Amos 3:2, you only have I chosen). This has given way to national universalism which means that since the cross Jesus is drawing people of all nations effectually and savingly to Himself (Jn. 12:32).

3D. This premise is supported by Scripture quotation

Hosea and Isaiah are quoted. The Hosea quote gives words to Israel that are applied to the Gentiles (vs. 24-26, "Gentiles…as he says in Hosea"). How so? When the people of God are named "not my people" and "not loved" (the names symbolically given to Hosea's children) they are in effect reduced to the status of being Gentiles; they are merged with the Gentile world and stand there outside of God's family and outside the circle of His love. But right in the middle of judgment, God promised that those who are not His people will be given a new name: "my people" and "sons of the living God" (vs. 25a, 26b). Thus, in effect He promised to go to the Gentiles and bring back a people according to His promises to Abraham. Thus this bringing of Gentiles back to be His people does not exclude Israel (because of God's promises to Abraham and his descendents according to the flesh). Isaiah confirms this fact: there is a saved remnant (v.27) left by God or Israel would have been totally annihilated (v. 29).

This simply expands the notion of mercy all the more: it is operative in the midst of the rebellion and judgment of the Jews and it is operative in the midst of the rebellion and blindness of the Gentiles. By this means, the glory of God is displayed in bold relief against the backdrop of the hardening/judgment of Israel and the mercy to Israel and the nations from the midst of righteous judgment.

2B. The conclusion

So, what if this is the case, and it is the case? What conclusion must be draw? We can draw a decisive answer to the complaint, "why does God blame us?" or "God is to be blamed for being unrighteous in judging His own work in us."

Paul's answer to the why is very simple: it is for God's glory. It is for the display of the fullness of His attributes since glory refers to them all comprehensively. Why does He blame us given that He shows mercy to some sinners of His choosing and withholds it from other sinners? Why does He do this? It is for His own glory for He carries out His purpose by displaying patient mercy in the midst of righteous wrath and in fulfillment of His own covenant love and covenant faithfulness. How can anyone raise complaint to this? How can we who have received mercy even go there for a moment?

What must be said and done?

Lord forgive us for excuse-making where we try to blame you for our sins.

Lord we acknowledge your righteousness and holiness.

Lord we praise you for your patience, for your effectual call, for your blessing on all nations of the earth.

Lord we thank you for your mercy-that we are recipients of your mercy for we are undeserving and were formerly lost in blindness and bondage of our sins. But you have given us eyes to see, ears to hear, and free feet to no longer serve sin as our master but to serve you as our sovereign Lord. Instead of blame-shifting, Lord, help us to be God-serving for your glory.