https://youtu.be/cFRmaMLIIUk
In our verse by verse study of Romans last time we finished our Expanded Translation Rom 9:20; "On the contrary, O mankind, you, who are you who answers back to the God? Can what is molded say to its molder, why have you made me like this?
This rhetorical question is a debater's technique that Paul uses to emphasize the blasphemy of the Jews who are relying on their own ability from natural birth, and their biological relationship to Abraham, rather than God's grace blessing of spiritual birth that had actually been the reason that Abraham had an eternal relationship with God on the basis of faith in God. Gen 15:6;
It was God's grace that made Abraham, Isaac and Jacob great not their biological physical heritage.
God's integrity is not subject to contradiction or impudence because God is totally, eternally, and infinitely fair. It is impossible for God to be unfair or arbitrary, or even inconsistent because of His perfect character.
Therefore in perfect righteousness God's justice provided man with a free will, so that man is a free agent in determining his own destiny. That means man must take the responsibility for his own free will decisions. Taking responsibility for one's self is the basic standard for establishing maturity.
Therefore man cannot blame his own mistakes and errors on perfect and incorruptible God. When God chooses to reject, pardon, or punish whom He pleases, He does so on the basis of His perfect integrity that is based on His righteousness and His justice or holiness.
Arrogant arbitrary subjective mankind assumes that God is the same as he is so he projects his own subjectivity on God but mankind cannot legitimately try to superimpose his own weakness and unfairness on God because God is perfect.
Man's objection to the inequalities of time as well as eternity is really an objection to the fact the he possesses freedom and the right of self-determination that produces the very inequalities that he blames God for.
Furthermore, when man objects to the printout of election, foreordination and foreknowledge or wrath. He fails to realize that his own free volition is what determines his own situation.
Negative volition seeks to circumvent condemnation from God's justice by blaming God's omniscience for entering only the facts into His decree in eternity past.
Man's irresponsibility and depravity is never more dramatically portrayed than when he tries to blame God for his own thoughts, decisions and actions.
God is not obligated to save the reversionistic unbeliever nor is He obligated to bless the reversionistic believer because their situation is the product of their own reversionism from their free will rejection of God's grace.
God is not obligated to impute blessing to the reversionistic believer in time, nor to impute rewards to him at the judgment seat of Christ.
God is obligated to Himself and God is obligated to His grace policy. God does not make exceptions for people because they are nice or have sweet personalities or are sincere or kind.
The issue is God's attitude toward Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, and after salvation, His attitude toward Bible, the written Word of God that is Jesus' thinking that comprises Bible doctrine.
An attitude that comes from man's volition rather than God's sovereignty is the desire is to blame God.
God must be consistent with Himself so He must punish the unbeliever and save the believer. He must bless the mature believer and discipline the reversionistic believer because God is always fair to everyone.
No one can say to God, "Why have you made me this way?" because mankind has his own free will so he made himself this way. Man is a free agent so he has self-determination. So the answer to Paul's rhetorical question is obviously "NOT!"
Mankind under the influence of Satanic thinking is always trying to force God to conform to his subjective human thinking rather than accepting God in terms of God's revelation. Man is always trying to bend God to his own thinking and saying, that "This is God's will."
The quotation from Isaiah 29:16; that Isaiah applied to the entire nation of Israel, Paul applies to the individual person.
Paul combines the doctrine of God's perfect integrity with the reality of man's arrogant subjectivity and his ignorance to establish the true issue of omniscience feeding facts and only the facts into God's decree.
Paul is not directing his remarks to the elect or the foreordained that attain spiritual maturity but in context he is speaking to the condemned Jew, who has rejected Christ as savior, has refused God's Shekinah glory, and is now grasping at straws in an attempt to justify his own failures.
To blaspheme and malign the perfect wisdom and justice of God is the irrational act of a desperate person. Irrational because after having made hundreds of free will decisions, culminating in judgment, God is blamed and maligned in an attempt to shift their responsibility for their own bad decisions to God by blaming God's sovereignty that simply ratified their free will decisions.
Paul uses debater's technique to refute this blasphemy shift the responsibility right back to human free will where free negative volition has manufactured hardness of heart.
Rom 9:21; begins with a disjunctive conjunction "e" (or) that is used in interrogative sentences to introduce and present a rhetorical question. It is simply translated "or" but it actually introduces an interrogative debater's finesse that takes the principle of the previous verse and illustrates the verse from the obvious.
Even the most ignorant person is aware of the fact that the inanimate pot doesn't argue with the potter. The nominative singular subject is "kerameus" (potter). This was a person who in the ancient world was very important because he made all kinds of useful utensils.
The next word is the negative adverb "ouk" (not) that is used in rhetorical questions expecting a positive answer of yes. In the Greek "mh" (not) expects a negative answer; "ouk" (not) expects a positive answer.
The answer to this question is "yes," because of the use of "ouk." You do not translate it "no," you translate it "yes." Only the Greeks would invent such a system of syntax so we have so far: "Or does not the potter."
Next we have the present active indicative of "echo" (have) that means to have or to possess. The customary present denotes what habitually occurs or may be reasonably expected to occur.
The active voice: the potter produces the action of the verb. The indicative mood is an interrogative indicative that assumes that there is an actual fact that can be stated in answer to the question that has escaped the brilliant Jews who are objecting to Paul and opposing him in his debate. Paul is going to finesse them right out of their minds.
The next word is the accusative singular direct object from "exousia" (right or authority) it means authority over, power over or right so far we have "Or does not the potter possess authority."
Then we have the genitive of relationship from "pelos" (wet clay). In the analogy God is the potter and mankind is the clay so when compared to God, mankind is completely and totally ignorant.
The rhetorical question expects a positive answer so it focuses attention on God's authority as the creator of all things including mankind and the universe.
Next we have the preposition "ek" (from) plus the ablative from the attributive use of the intensive pronoun autos (the same)- "from the same."
This is followed by the ablative singular from the noun "phurama" (mixture). It is derived from the verb phurao that means to mix.
What was mixed or mingled was called phurama. Phurao comes first because the components that are to be mixed together in the mixture and the one who mixes them must come before the mixture itself.
Every English translation I've looked at translates the Greek word for mixture as "lump" as in "lump of clay."
So we have the prepositional phrase "ek tou autou phurama," that is translated "from the same mixture."
The potter came before the pot. To mix and to mold and to manufacture takes something more than being manufactured. It takes more to make than it does to be made.
With this is the aorist active infinitive of the verb "poieo" (make) or to manufacture. The constantive aorist tense describes action that is extended over a period of time.
The constantive aorist tense describes the action of the verb in its entirety so the entire history of the biological human race from beginning to end is in view.
The active voice: God produces the action of the verb by creating the soul of mankind as a free agent where free will and self-determination reside.
The infinitive is the infinitive of intended result. When the result is indicated as fulfilling a deliberate objective in the creation of man it therefore becomes a blending of purpose and result.
"Phurama" (mixture) indicates what all members of the human race have in common. We all have something in common: we all came from the same mixture of clay. We all have a body that is the home for the soul. A pot is a container that represents the body that is a container.
The body contains the soul, and the soul determines whether you are a pot of honor or a pot of dishonor. A person's honor or dishonor comes from self-determination.
God puts volition into each pot, and each pot determines from his own free volition whether he is a pot of honor or a pot of dishonor.
Next we have classical Greek for comparison, "ho men, ho de" (on the one hand, on the other hand). This is composed of the nominative masculine singular from the definite article, meaning "the one," and the second time the definite article occurs it means "the other" so it means the one vessel and then the other.
With this is the nominative singular subject of "skeuos" (vessel or container) with the prepositional phrase for the first category, "eis timh" (for honor or the purpose of honor).
"Eis" is often used to make a purpose clause so we have "on the one hand a vessel "eis timh" for the purpose of honor, on the other hand another "eis atimia" for the purpose of dishonor).
Expanded Translation Rom 9:21; "Or does not the potter possess authority over the clay, from the same mixture to make on the one hand a vessel for the purpose of honor, and on the other hand another for the purpose of dishonor?"
Paul is telling us that if God wants to make a pot of honor and a pot of dishonor from the same mixture or lump of clay, does He have the right to do so? Yes. But that is not the issue it only sets up a way to address the real issue.
The issue is free will, not what right God has. God has the authority but that isn't the issue. The issue is, does the individual vessel recognize God's authority and make decisions that comply with God's authority?
This is not the only passage where the analogy of vessels is used. In Acts 9:15; we have the doctrine of election related to a vessel.
The word "vessel" always refers to a container. It is empty until it is filled and once Paul was filled with doctrine then he became the Lord's representative in a very unique way.
We have seen in Romans 9 that the analogy of vessels is used extensively we also see vessels used in connection with mankind's capacity to function in God's plan.
In 2 Cor 4:7; with the words "we have this treasure in clay vessels..." here we see vessels used to provide an analogy between Bible doctrine resident in the soul that provides capacity for life for mature believers -
The greatest of all treasures is doctrine resident in the soul and when the soul contains this doctrine there is great capacity for life.
In 2Tim 2:20,21; vessels are used to set up a contrast between the believer who is mature and the believer who is in reversionism.
In Proverbs 25:4 God is the smith and the believer is the one mentioned as the pure silver - "... there comes out a vessel for the smith."
Broken vessels are used to describe personal judgment from God. For example, when David was in reversionism (Psa 31:12) he wrote: "I am forgotten as a dead man; I am out of mind; I am like a broken vessel."
In other words, he felt completely and totally deserted, which is what happens under intensive discipline from God.