Justification and Law in Paul

Well I certainly agree that verses 23-24 are talking about the children of promise, but verses 20-22 are talking about another group - a group that are vessels of destruction:

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Surely, you are not suggesting this material (above) describes "children of promise"

Your logic is not correct here.

Yes, the "even us" refers to the vessels of mercy, Jew and Gentile.

But this does not mean that the vessels of destruction have to be from Jews and Gentiles. The language Paul uses and the form of his argument simply do not require us to conclude the "vessels of destruction" include Gentiles. This can be seen by rendering the exact argument Paul provides, but at each point choosing to insert "hardened Jew" in place of any reference to a "vessel of destruction":

But who are you, O hardened Jew, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some, that is, hardened Jews, for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - that is, hardened Jews —prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles

This is a perfectly coherent way to read the text. Tell me, Dr. W - where is the internal contradiction. You seem to think that the language and the form of the argument require us to see "vessels of destruction" as both Jew and Gentile. Well, if this is so, you should be able to tell me what error of logic my rendering of this text manifests.

You didn't explicitly say this but it seems that your argument is implicitly this:

1. The vessels of mercy are both Jews and Gentiles;
2. Obviously there are some Gentiles who are ultimately lost;
3. Therefore, since Paul is making a general statement about the fate of all humanity, then there must, of course, be some Gentiles who are vessels of destruction.

Point 1 is correct. Point 2 is also correct - there are indeed some Gentiles who are eventually lost. The problem is point 3 and its presumption that Paul has to be addressing the fate of all human beings. Paul nowhere says this, or even implies it. It appears that you are presuming that this is some kind of treatment of a universal doctrine of personal election. If that were so, then you might have a point - we would need to "assign" the lost Gentile to the "vessel of desctruction" category. But there is every reason to believe that Paul is not speaking generally here and is, instead, making the much more specific claim that "Jews have been hardened so that a Jew + Gentile family of God have the possibility of being saved". I will not argue this point here, but it is clearly a case that Paul could be making. In short, you would need to actually make the case that the potter metaphor addresses the fate of all human beings. For my part, and I have already argued this in part, I am quite confident that the weight of the evidence will be convincing - the vessels of destruction here are Jews and Jews only.

Besides, and I intend to argue shortly, Paul is drawing on a strong Biblical history of references of the potter reworking the pot as specifically references to God's treatment of Israel.

 

Indeed, but this does no damage at all to my argument. In fact the Pharaoh example strengthens the argument that Paul is talking about how Jews are hardened to bring salvation to the whole world.

When Paul gives the Pharoah example, he is giving an example of how God "hardens" people. Why does he harden them? To send them to hell? No. That is what people bring to the text. But if we let Paul speak, he tells us what God is up to in hardening Pharoah:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth

Paul is saying that Pharoah has been hardened so that God can them implement a great act of redemptive deliverance.

And this serves Paul's argument which is, yes, that God has hardened Jews so that salvation can be available to the whole world.

I shall not tire of repeating that passage from Romans 11 - it is a clear that because of the hardening that has happened to Israel, salvation has come to the Gentiles:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles...

I still need to deal with your Romans 11:25-32 argument more fully. I will do so shortly.

But the fact that Pharaoh was a Gentile does not undermine my argument. Paul uses the Pharaoh example, and others as well, as examples of God making choices, leading to the point of his argument - God has "chosen" or "elected" (most) Jews to be hardened so that salvation can come to the whole world.

 

No. The fact that Gentiles are "going to glory" does not mean that Paul is talking about Gentiles being hardened (or going "the other way" if you like). It is perfectly coherent for Pual to argue that most Jews have been hardened in order to create a church that is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. You seem to think that the form of the argument requires that if "both Jews and Gentiles" are vessels of mercy, this means that both Jews and Gentiles must be the vessels of destruction.

There is simply no warrant for such a conclusion. It is entirely possible that God could indeed harden Jews so that both Jews and Gentiles benefit.

And the fact that Pharaoh is a Gentile does not change this. I am suggesting that Paul uses Pharoah as an example of the general principle that God hardens. But the fact that God uses a Gentile as an example of hardening does not mean that Paul cannot be leading to a conclusion about only Jews being hardened.

 

This is not correct logic - I have already addressed this in post 81. You are fundamentally begging the question at issue. Your reasoning contains the hidden assumption that Paul is making a global theological argument, and that every human must find a "place" here.

Paul could be doing that, but you need to make the case - you cannot just assume it. Likewise, I cannot assume that the "vessels of destruction" are Jews only. I have already argued that this is the case (in posts 71 and 73 - and you never engaged the argument of post 71). Anyway, there is plenty more argument coming to the effect that Paul is arguing that God has hardened Jews so that Gentiles can be included in the family of God. Again:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles...

 

Dr. W: Can you make a case as to why the "vessels of destruction" must contain Gentiles that does not rest on the assumption that this an argument about the pre-destination of all human persons to an ultimate fate.

Obviously, Paul could be arguing exactly what I am saying - that Jews have been hardened so that the scope of the family of God can be opened up to include Gentiles:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles...

Do I assume that this is what Paul is doing in Romans 9 in the potter metaphor? No. I argue for it, as I have done in post 71 and as I will do in a number of posts to come.

 

You are presuming, against the weight of the actual evidence, that the "vessels of destruction" include Gentiles.

As should be clear, the fact that Pharoah is a Gentile does not mean that Paul's "vessels of destruction" must include Gentiles. Paul could be, and I suggest is in fact, arguing as follows:

1. God has the right to "elect" people to various "roles" in service of his ultimate plan of redemption. And he gives examples, one of which happens to be a Gentile (Pharoah);

2. God has elected the nation of Israel to be "hardened unto destruction" so that the entire world can be saved.

The fundamental error in your position on Pharoah is the presumption that the presentation of Pharaoh as an example of someone who is hardened - and Pharoah was specifically hardened to allow God to demonstate His power in the exodus - does not force us to read his "vessels of destruction" category as including Gentiles.

Pharoah is an example of God "hardening" somebody. The fact that he is a Gentile is fundamentally immaterial to where Paul wants to go with his list of examples.

And for reasons already explained, and as will be explained in much more detail, Paul is really making a point about Israel here - that is what this chapter is all about.

 

Well there is nothing in what I have posted that seeks to "change" what the text says. My position is entirely consistent with the text.

There is indeed a contrast. And the contrast is between hardened Jews and the "Jew+Gentile" family of faith.

There is simply nothing in this chapter, either thematically, linguistically, logically, or structurally that compels to read the "vessels of destruction" category as containing Gentiles.

In fact, the structure of the chapter suggests that the "vessels of destruction are Jews and Jews only.

How does the chapter begin? With a lament over the sad state of Israel.

How does the chapter end? Again, with a statement that Israel has "missed out": that shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even (BI)the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, (BJ)pursuing a law of righteousness, did not (BK)arrive at that law.

In terms of "bad things happening to people" in this chapter we have Israel at the beginning in a sad and Israel at the end in a sad state.

Now what makes more sense?

1. In the middle, Paul makes an excursion about a theology of personal election where both Jew and Gentile can be a vessel of destruction;

2. In the middle, Paul uses the "vessel of destruction" methaphor to explain what he is saying at the beginning and at the end about Israel. And that explanation is that she has been hardened and this explains her sad state.

Explanation 1 has Paul suddenly dropping the Israel-specificity of his negative analyis and then returning to it. Explanation 2 is more satisfying - the negative news is all about Israel.

You need to read more carefully and stop embarrassing yourself by making demeaning insults when you are the one in the wrong.

I never said that anybody was hardened for later salvation. So please, if you are going to be nasty and use the "heresy" rhetoric, at least get your facts straight.

 

The chapter begins with an expression of despair about Israel. Paul laments the sad state of his Jewish kinsmen:

who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and (the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are (L)the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, (O)God (P)blessed forever. Amen. 6But it is not as though the word of God has failed…

The implied question through the reference to the word of God is this: “Has God failed to live up to His promises to national Israel, given that their present rejection of Jesus places them outside the new covenant family?”. This is clearly a question about Israel - Paul is observing that despite the many promises made to the Jewish nation, they largely sit outside the covenant family.

Note that the questions of verses 14 and 19 can been seen as re-formulation of precisely this question, expressed in the context of examples about God making choices, and leading back to a conclusion about the Israel problem (remember none of the listed examples are examples of election to an eternal fate). On such a view, the basic template of what Paul is doing is this:

1. Introduce the problem – the sad state of Israel;

2. Point out that all these promises were made to Israel, literally begging the reader to ask: “Has God been fair to Israel?”

3. Give some examples of God making choices (Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh) to illustrate that God has the right to make the choices He makes even if they do not seem fair.

4. Having established (through these examples) that God has a right to make choices, return to the Israel problem and assert, through the potter metaphor, that God has the right to do what He wants with Israel, and explaining how the hardening of Israel has benefited the world.

Now, how would a potter metaphor addressing individual election, with no Israel specificity whatsoever, be any kind of answer to the Israel problem, the problem that Paul has actually raised, even though, mysteriously, many readers seem to think the question is one of personal pre-destination (in general). On the other hand, if the vessels of destruction is unbelieving Israel, the answer can be seen to be “God can do whatever He wants with national Israel, just like the potter has the right to mold a pot as he sees fit”. In this respect, a point that is often missed is that every single Old Testament use of the potter metaphors is specifically about God’s treatment of Israel.

In conclusion, the view that the vessels of destruction are hardened Jews, and Jews only, is a perfectly coherent assertion given the questions and concerns that Paul has actually put on the table – questions and concerns about the sad state of Israel. A conclusion that the vessels are the pre-destined lost – whether Jew or Gentile – is entirely irrelevant to such questions. Unless we assume that Paul has lost control of his argument, the standard “pre-destination of individuals” interpretation of the potter metaphor is thrown into great doubt.

 

Here are some texts demonstrating the Old Testament precedent of the potter metaphor. All of them are about the nation of Israel. From Isaiah 29:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

This is about the Jews - the nation of Israel.

This next text is from Isaiah 30. The NIV translators gave the title "Woe to the Obstinate Nation" to this chapter. Again, this is about Israel:

Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
"Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,

13 this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly

Note that in the above text from Isaiah 30, the connection to Romans 9 is even tighter. Not only do we note Isaiah’s identification of the pot with Israel, we can appeal to the more refined point that this pot has broken or shattered. This coheres perfectly well with the argument in chapter 9 where Paul not only invokes the potter / pot metaphor, he makes the further point that some pots are “fitted for destruction”. Therefore, seeing the pots “fitted for destruction” as Israel maps cleanly to Isaiah 30 both in regard to the identity of the pot and in regard to what happens to it.

And this one from Jeremiah is particularly clear:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Here we have another example of a correlation to Romans 9 that works at multiple levels. First, we have the pot clearly identified as Israel. But beyond this, we have the potter marring the pot in order to make another pot. Note how, in Romans 9, Paul is making the very same point about the pots – the vessels of destruction are “fitted for destruction” precisely for the benefit of the vessels of mercy:

if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory

 

There is, of course, heavy irony in your implication that I am ignorant.

Some argue that the following text from Romans 9 shows that Paul is focused on the matter of election of individuals to an eternal fate:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

The argument runs along these lines: Since Paul is referring to individuals, he intends the reader to understand that the issue is the election of individuals, with no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

I grant that, in verse 20, Paul appeals to a singular model where Paul invites us to imagine a single person challenging God in respect to what has befallen him. This man is no longer Paul’s imagined opponent, but clearly one who God has pre-destined to something bad.


Amid your litany of insults, you seem to suggest that I am some kind of twit for deigning to imagine that this "o man" is a hardened Jew.

Well, I suggest that Paul uses the "O man" construct as a literary device to "personalize" the objection that corporate Israel will have to its treatment. Note how this is consonant with the Israel focus suggested by the first verses of the chapter. In order to make his point accessible to the reader, Paul "puts a face" on corporate Israel by representing her by a single man, just as in Romans 7 where the “I” represents Israel as a whole.

Note also the reference to moulding and the potter and recall that Old Testament precedent repeatedly has God moulding Israel. Paul is keenly aware of this and is leveraging that precedent.

Consider the Isaiah 29text that Paul quotes from in verse 20:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

This is the very text from which the "o man" text is drawn – and clearly an Israel-specific reading is intended.

Now, prithee Dr W, who is "ignorant"? The one who chases up the Old Testament allusions that Paul is drawing on and discovers Israel-specifity?

Or the one who doesn't and denies such specificity?

 

Well, I suggest you have two challenges:

1. You need to actually make the case that Paul's "vessels of destruction" class is, in fact, "general" (and not "Jewish only);

2. You need to explain why Paul would draw on Old Testament texts where the broken pot is always Israel in the middle of an argument which is clearly about the sad state of, yes, Israel:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For (B)I could wish that I myself were (C)accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen (D)according to the flesh, 4who are (E)Israelites,

If the vessels of destruction include Gentiles, then why has Paul not told us he is lamenting over the sad state of all humanity.

Instead, he tells us that he laments over Israel. Therefore, when we read about vessels of destruction we should imagine that Paul is elaborating on the sad state of, yes, Israel.

If we used your eisgetical principle then there would be no such thing as Messanic prophecies as the Old Testament passages historically had to do with David, or Israel or some other Historical Old Testament figure.

No.

Romans 24 does not talk about the vessels of destruction, it talks about the vessels of glory.

And there is no thematic, linguistic, logical, or structural reason to presume that "if the vessels of glory are both Jew and Gentile, the vessels of glory be both Jew and Gentile.

 

Let's return to Pharoah. Given this statement from God;

I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here. It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.