Why do some people believe and some do not?

[studier]

The Greek verb forms for the middle and the passive voice are identical. Context must be used to decide which is meant. Sometimes both senses are possible, and which one one chooses will depend on which of them fits with one's broader understanding of what the Bible is describing. It is not honest to dismiss the use of the middle voice merely because one is presupposing a different perspective that requires it to be translated as passive, where its proponent can show that it makes sense as middle voice under their perspective,

So, my understanding of this is that it's dishonest to disagree with you because you think your interpretation makes sense. Please watch the innuendo.

My question to you was where you get the m/p? It looks like your answer is context as you interpret it. I did some interpretive work of the chapter before I answered you. I also did some lexical reading and looked at some work of others to see their conclusions. Here are a few samples:

BDAG views it as passive:

κατηρτισμένα verb participle perfect passive accusative neuter plural from καταρτίζω​

__________________________________​

Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)​

​

[BDAG] καταρτίζω​

• καταρτίζω fut. καταρτίσω; 1 aor. κατήρτισα, mid. κατηρτισάμην, 2 sg. κατηρτίσω. Pass.: aor. κατηρτίσθην LXX; pf. pass. κατήρτισμαι (ἀρτίζω, ‘get ready, prepare’, s. next entry; Hdt. et al.; ins, pap, LXX; TestSol 5:12 H).​

These translators note the potential middle voice but conclude it as passive:

NET Notes (Rom 9:22)​

​

42 tn Grk "vessels." This is the same Greek word used in v. 21.​

43 tn Or "vessels destined for wrath." The genitive ὀργῆς (orgeÒs) could be taken as a genitive of destination.​

44 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 (katartizoÒ) 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.​

​

I looked at other sources and the overwhelming view on the parsing was perfect passive.

It looks like you've done quite a bit of work. I'll look at it and respond in additional posts to try to keep this as simple as I can.

 

[GWH]

Good point! I had not thought of that parallel/comparison.

However, I must admit that it is easier to explain how the world operates by saying God causes/determines everything rather than by trying to understand how/why souls operate without being so-caused, although this mystery is not different from understanding or explaining how God is connected to His creation, thereby causing matter/energy to operate how it does.

The problem with affirming determinism of human beings is that it means denying the love of God and viewing people as robots, negating the accountability of souls, which makes the entire plan of salvation a mirage (and discussion on CC a farce).

 

[studier]

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

This edict was not merely that the person Esau should serve the person Jacob. Genesis makes it clear that there were two nations in Rebecca's womb, so this edict was that the nation of Esau/Edom should serve the nation of Jacob/Israel. Those Edomites who submitted God's edict, humbly defending Israel, would be expressing faith in God, and would be blessed along with blessed Israel, and because of their their faithfulness to and faith in Yahweh, Yahweh would regarded even them as his children, and would bless them. This proved true for the person Esau, who eventually accepted his servant status and was blessed by God for doing so.

However, Esau's descendants, Edom, departed from Esau's faithfulness, and made a habit of attacking the nation Jacob/Israel, for which treason God hated Esau/Edom and destroyed them. Now, the nation Israel was just as treasonous towards God as Edom was, but because of His promise to preserve Israel until Shiloh come, Yahweh continued to preserve Israel. This is why God says through Malachi 2000 years after His delegating Jacob to be the head,
"Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated, therefore you are not destroyed." he did not say this to Jacob and Esau in the womb, in 1791 BC; but to their descendants 13 centuries later, in 450 BC.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

9:11-12 The 2 sons are yet to be born. God for His elect purpose calls Jacob/Israel. God's unilateral sovereign choice will remain because God decreed it - He spoke it to Rebecca.

9:13 Paul uses Mal1 to substantiate that God's decree in fact remained.

I'll leave the work for you on hina+subjunctive in 9:11 then the subordinating conjunction in 9:13.

The point is that God's choice and call of Israel that God spoke remained and played out in history. The focus here is on God and what He did and decreed.

Even in Malachi we read the language of what God did with Esau/Edom and would have against them forever. As I've said previously, God reaches a point with men where's He's had enough. So, the other focus is what God did with Esau/Edom.

The love and hate terminology are being related by Paul all the way back to God's call and decree to Rebecca as spoken by Paul as comparative.

There is literally no focus here on the actions of men. The history of men is obviously in the background, but the focus is on God.

 

[studier]

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

No. God's mercy is His mercy to dispense as He wills.

Agreed. And the focus remains on God.

So, under the gospel, Gentiles according to the flesh, who were once faithless toward, God will be won over to faith by the love of God demonstrated through Christ; but Israel according to the flesh who sought to demonstrate their uniqueness and moral superiority to the gentiles by outward customs of Torah law-keeping, thinking that their God-given laws were what made them morally superior, proved their own unrighteousness by their imperfect keeping of the law and lip-service to God.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Who placed the stumbling stone (not to mention the Law)?

The focus throughout this chapter is God and what He has chosen, decreed, and done in history.

I note in your narrative above that you present again the love of God yet essentially skip over God's part in history with the disobedient. Yet here in these verses Paul continues to focus on God. God placed the stone which causes stumbling, the rock which causes offense. This IMO is very comparable to God's work in hardening hearts and in teaching in parables to hide truth.

This is why I and others see the participle in 9:22 as perfect passive. The focus is on what God has done and does.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

However, Esau's descendants, Edom, departed from Esau's faithfulness, and made a habit of attacking the nation Jacob/Israel, for which treason God hated Esau/Edom and destroyed them. Now, the nation Israel was just as treasonous towards God as Edom was, but because of His promise to preserve Israel until Shiloh come, Yahweh continued to preserve Israel.

God actually destroyed Israel nearly 700 years before Shiloh came. The prophecy was to Judah, ie the branch off of Israel, not Israel

 

[studier]

Pharaoh was raised up for the same purpose as God raised up Moses. Pharaoh, like Moses, like all people, was to reveal God's power and make His name great everywhere. He could have fulfilled that purpose by willingly releasing the Israelites, as Cyrus would do centuries later. But he chose to resist God's will. This did not stop God revealing His own power and making His name great everywhere through pharaoh. But He did it at pharaoh's expense: by having pharaoh and His armies destroyed.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

So, we can see that it matters not to God's goal whether a person respond with submission or with a hardening of their heart against God, either way God will succeed in showing His power and making His name great everywhere in the end. God's plan is not thwarted by a response of resistance to His plan.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Firstly, a suggestion; please try some newer translations. There is no comparison being made here between Pharaoh and Moses. God is telling Pharaoh what God has done and why.

NKJ Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."​

​

NAS Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."​

​

The Exodus account Paul quotes from explains that God could have wiped Pharoah and his people out but chose rather to do what He is doing as it explains how Pharoah hardened his heart and God hardened Pharoah's heart, the latter which you seem to ignore again, just as you seem to pass over making a comment about 9:18.

Close context is very simple; God raised Pharaoh up for God's purpose - conclusion; God has mercy as God wills, and God hardens as He wills. There is no ambiguity here requiring some work-around; both verbs are present active indicative. The subject is God. God hardens. In the narrative it clearly says God hardened Pharaoh.

​

 

[studier]

Now, an interlocutor may argue that, if God's plans are fulfilled no matter how people respond to Him, then no one can resist what God wants to do. And if no one can resist what God wants to do, then everything that happens must be by His permission. And if everything is done by His permission, then He must approve of everything that is done. And if He approves of everything that is done, even their resistance to him, then how can God hold people guilty for doing the resistance He has approved of ,that He could have stopped them doing? Does this line of reasoning look familiar?

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Does Paul give the answer: "You need to distinguish between God's decretive will and His permissive will"? Does Paul argue for compatibilism? Does Paul say, "You need just to believe that God is beyond logic and accept both of two contradictory claims: both that people harden their own hearts by their own volition, and that God works in them to give them whatever degree of hardness He wants and determines them to have"? No.

The interlocutor who argues here for predeterminism is contradicting God, who gives accounts in His word about people Paul has just pointed to, people like Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Esau, Moses and Pharaoh, who most certainly resisted His will. To argue for predeterminism is to claim that God made me as I am, so that I had to rebel, and I am doing God's decretive will when I sin/rebel.

You seem to be confusing discussions. The language and flow of the argument IMO doesn’t need to jump off into where you’re taking it.

Based upon the flow of Paul’s instruction, 9:19 is no more difficult than what Paul says:

[God has mercy upon and hardens as He wills], so, why does God blame men since no man can oppose God? Remove more of the rhetoric and the interlocutor simply says, God is unjust – God should not be blaming men for what God has done with men.

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against (i.e. that is contradicting) God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast THOU made me THUS?

Paul then uses the parable of the potter to show that what the clay becomes is not 100% the potter's call. . The quality of the product the potter can make depends on the quality of the clay and the degree to which it will conform to the potter’s vision. The potter may intend to make a high quality vessel for honourable use out of some clay, but in the process of forming the vessel, the clay resists the potter's will so that He cannot make of it the high-quality vessel he intended. As a result he revises his plan and makes a lower-quality vessel for some menial use, or if he cannot make even a vessel for menial use of the clay, he may dump project in the trash. Another piece of the same clay from the same lump might co-operate with the potter's aim and become a vessel for honourable use. The potter always aspires to make quality products, but he is limited by the quality of the clay he has in his hands. No potter corrupts the clay himself, in order to justify making a menial vessel out of it, or to justify discarding it as trash.

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

I’m just going to paraphrase; Paul’s argument continues in its flow; God has mercy and hardens as God wills > now you (O man) argue that since no man can oppose God, then God should not blame men > It’s ludicrous for a finished vessel to ask the potter why the potter made it as he did > the potter has authority over the clay to take the same batch of clay and make it into whatever the potter wills to make.

Nowhere does this argument say this is not 100% God’s call. Paul says God has the authority.

The clay used is all the same batch. Based upon your presupposition of God’s knowledge, you’re inserting God revising His plan and you’re revising the language to facilitate man’s cooperation or resistance which negates what Paul is establishing re: God’s authority and all the clay being from the same batch.

The vessel under discussion is done, not in process. God has completed the vessel under discussion.

Paul then implies that he thinks that the reason God is not instantly discarding the menial vessels made from lumpy non-malleable clay (but keeps them in his workshop and keeps working on them), even though they frustrate Him and he feels like dumping them into the trash, is that He has hope that He will be able to find an acceptable use, even if only a menial use, in his house for some of them in the end. Any such redeemed vessels, would become vessels of mercy who will be experiencing the richness of His glory. (Ps. 84:10 For a day in your courts is better than a thousand; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of the wicked.)

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

We’ve been over the language here. IMO the passive voice is well established. The vessels of wrath had been prepared [by God] for destruction. This is completed prior action being in that completed state until the time God chose to use them for his purposes. It is in the same flow of the argument of completed vessels already formed as the potter in his authority chose to form them.

There are 2 different verbs used in 9:22 & 23 re: the preparation for destruction vs. mercy. In 22 IMO its passive. In 23 it’s active. Both have God doing the action. Again, this section of Scripture is about God; His choice, His call, His decree, His loving vs. hating, His having mercy and His hardening as He wills, His making vessels by His authority.

The historical narratives and other Scriptures make it clear that men are involved in some of this as they relate to God in obedience vs. disobedience, faith vs. unbelief. But the focus here is on God and what He does. God hardens, God forms.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
The Greek verb forms for the middle and the passive voice are identical. Context must be used to decide which is meant. Sometimes both senses are possible, and which one one chooses will depend on which of them fits with one's broader understanding of what the Bible is describing. It is not honest to dismiss the use of the middle voice merely because one is presupposing a different perspective that requires it to be translated as passive, where its proponent can show that it makes sense as middle voice under their perspective,

So, my understanding of this is that it's dishonest to disagree with you because you think your interpretation makes sense. Please watch the innuendo.

My question to you was where you get the m/p? It looks like your answer is context as you interpret it. I did some interpretive work of the chapter before I answered you. I also did some lexical reading and looked at some work of others to see their conclusions. Here are a few samples:

BDAG views it as passive:

κατηρτισμένα verb participle perfect passive accusative neuter plural from καταρτίζω​

__________________________________​

Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)​

​

[BDAG] καταρτίζω​

• καταρτίζω fut. καταρτίσω; 1 aor. κατήρτισα, mid. κατηρτισάμην, 2 sg. κατηρτίσω. Pass.: aor. κατηρτίσθην LXX; pf. pass. κατήρτισμαι (ἀρτίζω, ‘get ready, prepare’, s. next entry; Hdt. et al.; ins, pap, LXX; TestSol 5:12 H).​

These translators note the potential middle voice but conclude it as passive:

NET Notes (Rom 9:22)​

​

42 tn Grk "vessels." This is the same Greek word used in v. 21.​

43 tn Or "vessels destined for wrath." The genitive ὀργῆς (orgeÒs) could be taken as a genitive of destination.​

44 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 (katartizoÒ) 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.​

​

I looked at other sources and the overwhelming view on the parsing was perfect passive.

It looks like you've done quite a bit of work. I'll look at it and respond in additional posts to try to keep this as simple as I can.

No. That is not what I said. I said,
"It is not honest to dismiss the use of the middle voice merely because one is presupposing a different perspective that requires it to be translated as passive, where its proponent can show that it makes sense as middle voice under their perspective." Even your own source admits it could be middle voice, even though they do not like that option.

I have given a translation of the Greek that is grammatically valid. I have stated that the participles must be interpreted relative to the position in time of the main verb, endured, which is aorist/atemporal. And it seems reasonable that Paul sees this endured referring to what God has been doing in the past all the way up to the judgment: He endured (aorist) the vessels of wrath... and he prepared (aorist) the vessels of mercy..

The potter spends his vessel-making career frustrated by the resistant clay that limits his ability to form it into the quality vessels he is initially wanting to produce. Due to limitations in the quality of the clay, by the end of his career, he has made (present perfect) a myriad of vessels with a broad range of quality, beauty, and usefulness. After his vessel-making career, he purges out all the defective pottery he has not found a way to make useful into the land-fill and keeps the rest. then we can say, "He endured (aorist) with much long-suffering (during the time leading up to the end of his career) those vessels which because of their own inferior clay quality have rendered themselves deserving (present perfect middle) of destruction, and so that he might display with pride the rescued vessels that he prepared beforehand (aorist) to be admired.

22 What if God, willing (present participle) to shew (aorist infinitive) his wrath, and to make known (aorist infinitive) his power, endured (aorist) with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted (perfect participle) to destruction:
23 And that (kai hina: even so that) he might make known (subjunctive) the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand (aorist) unto glory,

Using the same tenses to describe the way a principal deals with students who were caught vandalising the school during the year, whom he wanted to expel, but chose instead to defer judgment until after the end of the year exams to give all offending students the chance to rehabilitate and graduate, but with the threat of withholding graduation from those who did not stop damaging property.

What if the school principal, wanting (present participle) to express (infinitive) his outrage and to demonstrate (infinitive) his authority, endured (simple past) with much long-suffering the objects of his ire having fitted themselves (perfect passive) for criminal prosecution, even so that he might graduate (subjunctive) with honours the students shown mercy, which he prepared (simple past) for successful careers.
Those shown mercy will be those who rehabilitate before the exams, since those who do not rehabilitate will have their exams results and graduation withheld as they get charged for their crimes.

What I am showing here is that there is more than one way validly to interpret the sense of the Greek. of Roman 9. One's overarching soteriology will bias one to prefer a particular interpretation that conforms most to one's soteriology. But it is dishonest to dismiss a valid interpretation as invalid simply because it does not conform to one's soteriological bias. People can interpret Rom. 9 to conform to a predeterminist world-view. But we can also interpret the same chapter as conforming to a non-predeterminist world-view. We should learn to be able and willing to see things from other perspectives. We may not choose to embrace every element found in different perspectives, but if we are going to discredit some opinion, or some aspect of that opinion, we should at least understand what it is we are disagreeing with and not misrepresent it.

 

[PaulThomson]

God actually destroyed Israel nearly 700 years before Shiloh came. The prophecy was to Judah, ie the branch off of Israel, not Israel

Judah was a descendant of Israel. If someone wipes out all but one branch twig of the clan from which I derive, they have not wiped out the clan, since I am a part of that clan and I am surviving. All Judah is Israel, but not all Israel is Judah.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Judah was a descendant of Israel. If someone wipes out all but one branch twig of the clan from which I derive, they have not wiped out the clan, since I am a part of that clan and I am surviving. All Judah is Israel, but not all Israel is Judah.

That just creates confusion calling Judah, Israel. Judah was of Israel, but it wasn't Israel. God split them apart for a reason and makes a distinction between them throughout the OT after the split. The promises to Abraham resided with the firstborn Ephraim (ie Israel), not Judah. God made a covenant with David that Christ would be his heir, whom God chose to be the firstborn who would inherit all of the promises. All of that gets lost when calling Judah, Israel

 

[PaulThomson]

Firstly, a suggestion; please try some newer translations. There is no comparison being made here between Pharaoh and Moses. God is telling Pharaoh what God has done and why.

NKJ Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."​

​

NAS Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."​

​

The Exodus account Paul quotes from explains that God could have wiped Pharoah and his people out but chose rather to do what He is doing as it explains how Pharoah hardened his heart and God hardened Pharoah's heart, the latter which you seem to ignore again, just as you seem to pass over making a comment about 9:18.

Close context is very simple; God raised Pharaoh up for God's purpose - conclusion; God has mercy as God wills, and God hardens as He wills. There is no ambiguity here requiring some work-around; both verbs are present active indicative. The subject is God. God hardens. In the narrative it clearly says God hardened Pharaoh.

I agree that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But yet again I repeat, we disagree on the mechanism by which God hardens hearts. I say he does it the same way you and I harden someone else's heart. You seem to think God does it some special other way that the one hardened cannot resist.

I dealt with Romans 9:17 - 19 But again in more detail -
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, 17 Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

We do not get mercy from God because we will/want it on our own terms, nor because we try to earn it on our own terms, but God dispenses His mercies on His own terms.

God showed mercy to Pharaoh at many times throughout Pharaoh's life according to God's good pleasure on his own terms, as he does us all. And God hardened Pharaoh many times throughout his life by making him aware of unwelcome truths and duties that Pharaoh resisted, as God does to us all.

All these three verses say is that God told Pharaoh what his purpose on earth is, and it's the same purpose we all have. That "God might shew His power in us, and that His name might be declared throughout all the earth." Laying this expectation or duty on us has the effect of either submitting and experiencing His mercies that are new every morning, or hardening us because we have our own contrary agendas and priorities. But God is no respecter of persons, and lays that same duty on all, whether the duty causes submission and we experience mercy, or the duty cause hardening, and we experience resentment and grumbling. He does not exclude someone from the duty, if He thinks insisting on the duty will harden them. That's what I think, "And whom He wills He hardens" means.

 

[PaulThomson]

That just creates confusion calling Judah, Israel. Judah was of Israel, but it wasn't Israel. God split them apart for a reason and makes a distinction between them throughout the OT after the split. The promises to Abraham resided with the firstborn Ephraim (ie Israel), not Judah. God made a covenant with David that Christ would be his heir, whom God chose to be the firstborn who would inherit all of the promises. All of that gets lost when calling Judah, Israel

At the time the prophecy re Shiloh was made, Israel included Judah. Gen. 49:10

 

[Mitspa]

That just creates confusion calling Judah, Israel. Judah was of Israel, but it wasn't Israel. God split them apart for a reason and makes a distinction between them throughout the OT after the split. The promises to Abraham resided with the firstborn Ephraim (ie Israel), not Judah. God made a covenant with David that Christ would be his heir, whom God chose to be the firstborn who would inherit all of the promises. All of that gets lost when calling Judah, Israel

I think the whole of the New Testament speaks to the Jews being those to whom the promises of God belong and even calling them "Israel" in certain instances.

 

[studier]

No. That is not what I said. I said,
"It is not honest to dismiss the use of the middle voice merely because one is presupposing a different perspective that requires it to be translated as passive, where its proponent can show that it makes sense as middle voice under their perspective." Even your own source admits it could be middle voice, even though they do not like that option.

I have given a translation of the Greek that is grammatically valid. I have stated that the participles must be interpreted relative to the position in time of the main verb, endured, which is aorist/atemporal. And it seems reasonable that Paul sees this endured referring to what God has been doing in the past all the way up to the judgment: He endured (aorist) the vessels of wrath... and he prepared (aorist) the vessels of mercy..

The potter spends his vessel-making career frustrated by the resistant clay that limits his ability to form it into the quality vessels he is initially wanting to produce. Due to limitations in the quality of the clay, by the end of his career, he has made (present perfect) a myriad of vessels with a broad range of quality, beauty, and usefulness. After his vessel-making career, he purges out all the defective pottery he has not found a way to make useful into the land-fill and keeps the rest. then we can say, "He endured (aorist) with much long-suffering (during the time leading up to the end of his career) those vessels which because of their own inferior clay quality have rendered themselves deserving (present perfect middle) of destruction, and so that he might display with pride the rescued vessels that he prepared beforehand (aorist) to be admired.

22 What if God, willing (present participle) to shew (aorist infinitive) his wrath, and to make known (aorist infinitive) his power, endured (aorist) with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted (perfect participle) to destruction:
23 And that (kai hina: even so that) he might make known (subjunctive) the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand (aorist) unto glory,

Using the same tenses to describe the way a principal deals with students who were caught vandalising the school during the year, whom he wanted to expel, but chose instead to defer judgment until after the end of the year exams to give all offending students the chance to rehabilitate and graduate, but with the threat of withholding graduation from those who did not stop damaging property.

What if the school principal, wanting (present participle) to express (infinitive) his outrage and to demonstrate (infinitive) his authority, endured (simple past) with much long-suffering the objects of his ire having fitted themselves (perfect passive) for criminal prosecution, even so that he might graduate (subjunctive) with honours the students shown mercy, which he prepared (simple past) for successful careers.
Those shown mercy will be those who rehabilitate before the exams, since those who do not rehabilitate will have their exams results and graduation withheld as they get charged for their crimes.

What I am showing here is that there is more than one way validly to interpret the sense of the Greek. of Roman 9. One's overarching soteriology will bias one to prefer a particular interpretation that conforms most to one's soteriology. But it is dishonest to dismiss a valid interpretation as invalid simply because it does not conform to one's soteriological bias. People can interpret Rom. 9 to conform to a predeterminist world-view. But we can also interpret the same chapter as conforming to a non-predeterminist world-view. We should learn to be able and willing to see things from other perspectives. We may not choose to embrace every element found in different perspectives, but if we are going to discredit some opinion, or some aspect of that opinion, we should at least understand what it is we are disagreeing with and not misrepresent it.

I may read this later but skimming I get the gist. I don't think your pov has merit and you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the obvious focus on the sovereign will and righteous activities of God that Paul is making the case for.

Last time you and I dealt with some Greek translation issues I recall you standing against a fairly substantial amount of referenced material that disagreed with you. It seems to me this time is not much if any different.

What you consider valid I and others I looked at don't think is valid. And making up analogies to suit your pov doesn't make the case. Such can be made up to illustrate either pov. Your analogiy may have merit elsewhere that speaks of God still working in people(s), but not here in Rom9. Rather, Paul himself used the potter analogy from Scripture to say the vessel was already made. Not only is it not able to make or remake itself or tell the maker it wants to be something else, but to oppose its authoritative maker re: why he made it thus from the same batch of clay he makes valuable vessels from, is an absurdity.

FWIW, your continued statements re: dishonesty are rejected. I read your views closely and pointed out where I think you're off. It's not dishonest to interpret the immediate context and language as it is objectively seen to be stated. I've simply looked at the language in context to formulate an interpretation that the context is focused on God and what He does and what Paul in a few different ways says God in His authority does according to His own will. That IMO resolves any passive/middle spelling issue and drives the interpretation to passive. Again, I am not the only one to view it this way and it seems you once again choose to disagree with reference material I supply that agrees with me and I with it.

I don't think either of us will convince the other of error at this point. If you'd like to present some referenced material, exegetical commentary or articles that support you, then I may review them. I don't think you make your case and your repetition of dishonesty trends into ad hominem argumentation.

Here's another interesting reference on the parsing and various use of the verb in Scripture. Maybe you can view it as my providing another opportunity for you to reconsider your position while at the same time my using it to harden your position even more: TR Inflectional distribution for κατηρτισμένα

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I think the whole of the New Testament speaks to the Jews being those to whom the promises of God belong and even calling them "Israel" in certain instances.

That would be interesting to look at. The promises never resided with Judah, except for Christ, the firstborn who inherited the promises. But after Pentecost the sticks of Ephrain/Israel and Judah were reunited in Christ and became one in his hand (Ezekiel prophecy), So by that point Judah/Jews was synonymous with Israel

 

[PaulThomson]

You seem to be confusing discussions. The language and flow of the argument IMO doesn’t need to jump off into where you’re taking it.

Based upon the flow of Paul’s instruction, 9:19 is no more difficult than what Paul says:

[God has mercy upon and hardens as He wills], so, why does God blame men since no man can oppose God? Remove more of the rhetoric and the interlocutor simply says, God is unjust – God should not be blaming men for what God has done with men.

I’m just going to paraphrase; Paul’s argument continues in its flow; God has mercy and hardens as God wills > now you (O man) argue that since no man can oppose God, then God should not blame men > It’s ludicrous for a finished vessel to ask the potter why the potter made it as he did > the potter has authority over the clay to take the same batch of clay and make it into whatever the potter wills to make.

Nowhere does this argument say this is not 100% God’s call. Paul says God has the authority.

The clay used is all the same batch. Based upon your presupposition of God’s knowledge, you’re inserting God revising His plan and you’re revising the language to facilitate man’s cooperation or resistance which negates what Paul is establishing re: God’s authority and all the clay being from the same batch.

The vessel under discussion is done, not in process. God has completed the vessel under discussion.

We’ve been over the language here. IMO the passive voice is well established. The vessels of wrath had been prepared [by God] for destruction. This is completed prior action being in that completed state until the time God chose to use them for his purposes. It is in the same flow of the argument of completed vessels already formed as the potter in his authority chose to form them.

There are 2 different verbs used in 9:22 & 23 re: the preparation for destruction vs. mercy. In 22 IMO its passive. In 23 it’s active. Both have God doing the action. Again, this section of Scripture is about God; His choice, His call, His decree, His loving vs. hating, His having mercy and His hardening as He wills, His making vessels by His authority.

The historical narratives and other Scriptures make it clear that men are involved in some of this as they relate to God in obedience vs. disobedience, faith vs. unbelief. But the focus here is on God and what He does. God hardens, God forms.

You are simply dismissing my reading of the text because it does not fit the flow of Paul's argument as you read it. I have catefully explained the flow of Paul's argument as I read it, taking into account that Paul is not proof-texting from the OT in support of some metaphysical case for exhaustive divine determinism, but is using single key statements from the OT to point to OT narratives that he expects readers to consult to understand the import of the key statements he is linking together and so get a more comprehensive understanding of God's plan for redeeming Jews along with Gentiles.

If you read the complete narrative from Jeremiah 18 re the potter, it is clear that the potter is limited by the quality of the clay. He wants to make a very good pot, but the clay is of poor quality so he revises his plan and makes a different vessel. In the narrative of Jeremiah, God interprets the clay as representing Israel that God wanted to make into a vessel for honour, but their resistance to His hand on them ruined the resulting vessel. So, He remakes the clay into a different vessel from the one He originally intended. It was not the potter deliberately choosing clay that He Himself had corrupted so that he could make a vessel to smash. God says that the parable is about God's ability to change His plans for us and reshape us according to whether we submit to Him or rebel against Him. If I plan to destroy a nation and they repent I will change their destiny and reshape them into a blessed vessel. But if I plan to bless a nation and they rebel, I will change their destiny and reshape them into a cursed vessel fitted for destruction. There is no idea in Jeremiah 18 of Israel (the clay lump) being at an point completely passive and powerless to determine what kind of vessel they will become.

You are taking the few verses extracted from Jeremiah and used by Paul, and are removing all the nuance they should be receiving from their context in Jeremiah, and are adding to them all the nuance of a systematic theology you want the Romans text to support. I do not agree with that hermeneutic.

 

[studier]

I agree that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But yet again I repeat, we disagree on the mechanism by which God hardens hearts. I say he does it the same way you and I harden someone else's heart. You seem to think God does it some special other way that the one hardened cannot resist.

Well, agreement is good albeit a bit surprising.

Your last sentence is difficult to understand clearly. To clarify and respond to what I think you're saying:

• I think I've made it clear what I see God doing in what we see as the process of hardening.
• God provides information or demands He knows will be resisted. I don't think from what you've said that you think God has the ability to know what man will do.
• He doesn't say He might harden a heart. He says He will harden a heart. Paul also says this. God hardens who He wills [to harden] and man has no comeback. There's no mystery or secret or potential or probability indicated. God knows it. God wills it. God does it. It happens. Paul is dealing from the perspective that it's done - the vessel is already formed and there's no going back.
• As for "cannot"; at some point man cannot and we trend into the sovereignty vs. human will discussions and how the Text may seem to say some men never could. Then we argue election for centuries. Honestly, I think it's mostly semantics.

 

[Mitspa]

That would be interesting to look at. The promises never resided with Judah, except for Christ, the firstborn who inherited the promises. But after Pentecost the sticks of Ephrain/Israel and Judah were reunited in Christ and became one in his hand (Ezekiel prophecy), So by that point Judah/Jews was synonymous with Israel

Honestly it seems Paul uses the term "Jew" and "Israel" interchangeably through out his letters, here is the first example I noticed.


Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

 

[studier]

You are simply dismissing my reading of the text because it does not fit the flow of Paul's argument as you read it.

What else would you expect at the end of a non-simple analysis that disagrees with yours? If you choose to call disagreement "dismissing" then I'm OK with this. But I'd take issue with "simply dismissing." Discussing language and context with you is not simple or done quickly.

f you read the complete narrative from Jeremiah 18 re the potter,

Paul, I think we are too far apart to find agreement. I find your work in the grammar and context wanting and your rejection of references that disagree with you troubling. There are more reasons.

In quickly glancing at the Jer18 Scripture again, I immediately see issues with your interpretation. It looks to speak of the condition of the vessel not of the clay which you keep inserting as an issue.

By 18:10 the indication is that God will repent of the good He spoke to do. That sounds determinative at a point which is precisely what I've been saying about Rom9 and my read of how God deals with vessels He makes. You might also want to look at Is29:16 and 64:8.

You are taking the few verses extracted from Jeremiah and used by Paul, and are removing all the nuance they should be receiving from their context in Jeremiah, and are adding to them all the nuance of a systematic theology you want the Romans text to support. I do not agree with that hermeneutic.

I honestly don't follow any systematic theology and the hermeneutic we've been discussing is what does the Scripture grammatically and in context say? That's pretty basic interpretive analysis.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Honestly it seems Paul uses the term "Jew" and "Israel" interchangeably through out his letters, here is the first example I noticed.


Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

By that time they were reunited, so it's moot. To understand how they looked at it before Pentecost consider that the Galilean disciples did not consider themselves to be Jews; they were children of Israel. If they had considered themselves to be Jews they would not have spoken like this

Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. His disciples said unto him, lord, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? John 11:7-8​