EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Romans 9:22 f. forms a conditional interrogative sentence, the
apodosis of which is not expressed, but is gathered from the context, viz.:
Wilt thou still be able to venture theἀνταποκρίνεσθαι τῷ Θεῷ of
Romans 9:20 f.? Must thou not utterly become dumb with thy replies? Comp. on
John 6:61;
Acts 23:9;
Luke 19:41 : see also Calvin and Calovius,
in loc.; Fritzsche,
Conject. p. 30; Hartung,
Partikell. II. p. 212; Dissen,
ad Dem. de cor. p. 297. This
aposiopesis with
εἰ δὲ corresponds perfectly to our:
but how if, etc. It is to be translated: “
But how if God, although minded to manifest His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath, which are nevertheless adjusted for destruction, in order also to make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory?”
Paraphrased, the sense is: “
But if God, notwithstanding that His holy will disposes Him not to leave unmanifested His wrath and His power, but practically to make them known, has nevertheless hitherto, full of long-suffering, endured such as are objects of His wrath, and spared them from the destruction, to incur which they are nevertheless constituted and fitted like a vessel by the potter—
endured them and spared them not merely as a proof of such great long-suffering towards them, but also with the purpose in view of making known, during the period of this forbearance, the fulness of His glorious perfection in respect to such as are objects of His mercy, whom He, as the potter fashions a vessel, has prepared beforehand, and put in order for eternal glory,—how, in presence of that self-denying
long-suffering of God towards
vessels of wrath, and in presence of this gracious purpose, which He withal, at the same time, cherishes towards the
vessels of mercy, must any desire to dispute with God completely depart from thee!”
In
detail the following points are to be observed:
δὲ is neither equivalent to
οὖν, nor resumptive, but the simple
μεταβατικόν, making the transition to something
further, namely, from the previous dismissal of the objector to the
refutation which puts him to shame. Tholuck (comp. also Weiss, Reithmayr, and others) takes it
antithetically, so that the sequence of thought would be: “I assert this as God’s absolute right against you, if you choose to take your stand on the point of right; but how if God
has not so much as even dealt thus, etc.?” But such an interpretation, which would require the contrast to be much more strongly marked than by the mere
δὲ, is at variance with the retention in the sequel of the figurative
ΣΚΕΎΗ and their preparedness; because it is thence evident, that what Paul had previously said concerning the freedom of God to prepare men of different character and destiny like potters’ vessels, he by no means intended to cancel, as if God
had not thus dealt.
Θέλων is, with Fritzsche, Philippi, Lamping, and several others, to be resolved by
although, because only thus is there yielded the logically correct preparation for the notion of
πολλὴ μακροθυμία, which is a
self-denying one; the
θέλειν ἐνδείξασθαι κ.
τ.
λ. is the constant
essential characteristic of the holy God, and yet He has borne, etc. The analysis:
because God willed (so most, including de Wette, Rückert, van Hengel), yields the sense that God has, in order thereupon to issue all the more evident a penal judgment, endured patiently, etc.; but this would not amount to a
πολλὴ μακροθυμία, but in fact to a delay occasioned by an ungodlike motive, and having in view the heaping up of wrath. Unworthy of God, and only rendered possible by the importation of parenthetical thoughts, is the sense which Hofmann educes: God has
not so borne with those men,
that He would first see how it would be with them, in order then to deal with them
accordingly; but He has done so
with the will already withal firmly settled, to prove, etc. That
negative and this
already firm settlement of will are read between the lines.
Θέλων is placed at the
head of the sentence, in order by contrast the more forcibly to prepare the mind for the notion for which it is intended to prepare, that of the
μακροθυμία.
ΤῸ ΔΥΝΑΤῸΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ is
what is possible to Him,
what He is in a position to do. Comp.
Romans 8:3,
τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. Xen.
Hell. i. 4. 13,
τοῦ τῆς πόλεως δυνατοῦ. As to the matter itself, see 3Ma 2:6. The aorist
ἬΝΕΓΚΕΝ does not refer to the long forbearance with
Pharaoh (Chrysostom, de Wette, and most); the reference to him has been already concluded with
Romans 9:18; but Paul intends generally the
time hitherto (which will in like manner run on under this divine long-suffering up to the
Parousia), when God has still restrained the will of His holiness, and has not yet accomplished the destruction of the objects of His wrath, which He will do for the first time in judgment. The
σκεύη ὀργῆς, without the article,
vessels of wrath, denotes not
some, but such
σκεύη generally,
qualitatively understood, namely, vessels which are prepared (
Romans 9:20 f.) to experience God’s wrath on themselves, to be the objects of it. The effect of this wrath, which will go forth at the judgment, is
everlasting destruction; hence
κατηρτ.
εἰς ἀπώλ.,
adjusted for destruction (not “
ripe for destruction,” as Weiss and Hofmann explain), serves to bring the
μακροθυμία into still clearer relief, which is not that which
waits for the
self-decision of human freedom (Beyschlag), especially for
amendment (in opposition to Bengel, Tholuck, and others), but that which
delays the
penal judgment (comp. on
Luke 18:7), the
prolongatio irae,
Jeremiah 15:15,
et al. The passage
Romans 2:4 f. is no protest against this view, since the apostle does not there, as in the present passage, place himself at the standpoint of the absolute divine will. The subject who has adjusted those concerned for
ἀπώλεια is
God; and any saving clause whereby the passive sense is made to disappear, or the
passive expression—which, after
Romans 9:20 f., not even a certain refinement of piety is to be suggested as underlying—is made to yield the sense that
they had adjusted
themselves for destruction, or had
deserved it (see Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, and many; also Steudel, Olshausen, Reithmayr, Beck, Hofmann, and Krummacher), is opposed to the literal meaning and to the context (
Romans 9:21). See also Lamping, p. 213. Hofmann’s interpretation especially: “who
had advanced to that point, and
found themselves therein,” is wrecked on his incorrect explanation of
τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως,
Romans 9:20. In
καὶ ἵνα κ.
τ.
λ.,
καί is
also, introducing, in addition to the object involved in the previous
ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ,
that accessory object which God had in view in enduring the vessels of wrath
in reference to vessels of mercy (the use of the genit.
ἐλέους corresponds to that of
ὀργῆς,
Romans 9:22). Besides His great long-suffering towards
those, He would
also make known how rich in glory He was towards
these. For had He not so patiently tolerated the
σκεύη ὀργῆς, but already caused the penal judgment to set in upon them (which is to be thought of as setting in along with the
Parousia, not antecedently to this, like the destruction of Jerusalem), He would have had no space in which to make known His glory on
σκεύεσιν ἐλέους. But this purpose was to be served exactly by that long period of forbearance, during which such
σκεύη as were prepared beforehand by God for eternal
δόξα should through their calling (
Romans 9:24) be led to Christ, and thereby the fulness of the divine glory should be made known in respect to them; which making known is matter
of fact (
Ephesians 3:10). In
τῆς δόξ.
αὐτοῦ, the context directs us to think of the
divine majesty in relation to its beneficent glory, its glory in the bestowal of blessing; but
εἰς δόξαν, as the opposite of
εἰς ἀπώλ., denotes the everlasting
Messianic glory (
Romans 8:21;
Romans 8:30). The verbs
ἑτοιμάζειν and
καταρτίζειν are not as different from one another as
existence (
Dasein) is from
mode of existence (
Sosein),—an assertion of Hofmann’s as incorrect as it is devoid of proof,—but
ἑτοιμάζειν also denotes
to constitute qualitatively, to prepare in the corresponding quality (
1 Corinthians 2:9;
Ephesians 2:10;
Philemon 1:22;
Matthew 3:3;
Luke 1:17;
Luke 2:31;
John 14:2,
et al.). Comp. here especially
2 Timothy 2:21. Against such an error the well-known reflexive use of
ἑτοιμάζειν ἑαυτόν (
Revelation 8:6;
Revelation 19:7) should have warned him, as well as the equivalent use of the middle (
1Ma 5:11;
1Ma 12:27, and very frequently in the classics). It is solely with a view to variety and illustration that Paul uses for the same notion the
two verbs, of which Hofmann rationalizes the
ἑτοιμάζειν to mean: “that it is God who
has caused those who attain to glory
to come into being for the end of possessing the glory, to which they thereupon attain by the fact that He pours forth His own upon them.” Nor is there anything peculiar to be sought behind the change from passive to active; the transition to the active was more readily suggested by the thought of the activity of
love. The
προ in
προητοίμασεν is not to be disregarded (see on
Ephesians 2:10); nor is it to be referred to the time before birth, nor to the
aeterna electio (the latter is the act of God, which before time
preceded the
praeparatio); but to the fact that God has so previously fashioned the
σκεύη ἐλέους, before He makes known His glory on them (just as the potter fashions the vessel), that is, has constituted in them that ethical personality, which corresponds to their destination to obtain eternal
δόξα through Christ. In
ἐπὶ the act of making known is contemplated as
extending over the men, who are its objects. If, with Beza and Fritzsche (
Conject. p. 29; not abandoned in his
Comment. p. 343 f., but placed
alongside of the ordinary mode of connection), we should make
καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ κ.
τ.
λ. dependent, if not simply on
κατηρτισμένα (Rückert), yet on
κατηρτ.
εἰς ἀπώλειαν (so also Beyschlag), in which case
καὶ would have to be taken most simply as
and, the entire balance of the discourse would be deranged, inasmuch as the important thought
καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ κ.
τ.
λ., on which the whole sequel depends, would be subordinated to a mere secondary definition. The centre of gravity of the argument lies in the bearing with the vessels of wrath on the part of the divine long-suffering; and
thereof in
Romans 9:23 there is brought forward an explanation glorifying God, which is
added in
respect to theσκεύη ἐλέους. The connection above referred to would also certainly yield a severity of thought, a
rigour of telic view, which, granting all the boldness of deduction with which Paul follows out the idea of predestination, yet finds nothing further in accord with it in the whole treatise; the thought, namely, that God has made ready the
σκεύη ὀργῆς for destruction, in order,
through the effect of the contrast, the more fully to make known His glory in the
σκεύεσι ἐλέους.
It is further to be remarked, (1) That the interrogative conditional sentence forming an aposiopesis
terminates withRomans 9:23, and is not (with Fritzsche) to be extended to
Romans 9:24, since all that follows from
Romans 9:25 onward belongs to the topic started in
Romans 9:24. (2) That we are
not, following Reithmayr and older commentators with Philippi,
to supply a secondεἰ between
ΚΑῚ and
ἽΝΑ in
Romans 9:23, and to assume that Paul had intended at the close of
Romans 9:23 to say
ἘΚΆΛΕΣΕΝ ΑὐΤΟΎς, but that he at once directed his glance at the concretes, and therefore wrote
ΟὛς ΚΑῚ ἘΚΆΛΕΣΕΝ ἩΜᾶς instead of
ἘΚΆΛΕΣΕΝ ΑὐΤΟΎς. Thereby a rambling and confusion in the presenting of his thoughts is, quite unnecessarily, imputed to the apostle, which would be very glaring, particularly in a dialectic passage so stamped throughout with clearness, definiteness, and precision as the present. Similarly, but still more confusedly, Tholuck. The language in
Romans 9:22-23 is condensed and rich in thought, but runs on according to plan and rule in its form. (3) The
apodosis (which on our understanding is not expressed) is not to be found in
Romans 9:23, because this would only be possible by arbitrarily supplying
hoc fecit, or the whole preceding chief sentence. So Ewald: “
so He did that also, in order that He might make known, on the other hand, the riches of His glory, etc.;” so also Th. Schott and Hofmann.
With our explanation agree substantially Calvin, Grotius, and several others; including Winer, p. 530 [E. T. 713]; Baur, in the
Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 200; Lamping and van Hengel, whilst Umbreit educes something which has no existence in the passage, as though it ran:
εἰ δὲ ἔθελεν ὁ Θεὸς …
ἀλλʼ ἤνεγκεν κ.
τ.
λ. (He has, on the contrary, endured, etc.)
Romans 9:22-29. Paul’s argument, to speak plainly, has got into an
impasse. He is not able to carry it through, and to maintain the sovereign freedom of God as the whole and sole explanation of human destiny, whether in men or nations. He does, indeed, assert that freedom to the last, against the presumptuousness of man; but in this third section of his theodicy, he begins to withdraw from the ground of speculation to that of fact, and to exhibit God’s action, not as a bare unintelligible exercise of will, which inevitably provokes rebellion, but as an exercise of will of such a character that man can have nothing to urge against it.
εἰ δὲ: the
δὲ marks the transition to the new point of view. It is as if Paul said: You may find this abstract presentation of God’s relations to man a hard doctrine,
but if His actual treatment of men, even of those who are
σκεύη ὀργῆς κατ.
εἰς ἀπώλειαν, is distinguished by longsuffering and patience, what can you say against that?
θέλων has been rendered (1) because it is His will; (2) although it is His will. In the former case, God bears long with the vessels of wrath in order that the display of His wrath and power may be more tremendous at last. But (
a) such an idea is inconsistent with the contrast implied in
δέ: it is an aggravation of the very difficulty from which the Apostle is making his escape; (
b) it is inconsistent with the words
ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ; it is not longsuffering if the end in view is a more awful display of wrath; there is no real longsuffering unless the end in view is to give the sinner place for repentance. Hence the other view (2) is substantially right. Although it is God’s will to display His wrath and to show what He can do, still He does not proceed precipitately, but gives ample opportunity to the sinner to repent and escape. We are entitled to say “the sinner,” though Paul does not say so explicitly, for
ἡ ὀργή, the wrath of God, is relative to sin, and to nothing else: except as against sin, there is no such thing as wrath in God. In
σκεύη ὀργῆς the word
σκεύη is perhaps prompted by the previous verse, but the whole associations of the potter and the clay are not to be carried over: they are expressly precluded by
ἤνεγκεν ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμία. Paul does not say how the
σκεύη ὀργῆς came to be what they are, the objects upon which the wrath and power of God are to be revealed; he only says that such as they are, God has shown great patience with them. It seems a mistake in W. and H. to print
σκεύη ὀργῆς as a quotation from Jeremiah 50 (LXX 27):25; for there the words mean “the instruments
by which God executes His wrath,”
les armes de sa colère (Reuss).
κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν:
ἀπώλεια (
Php 1:28;
Php 3:19) means perdition, final ruin; by what agency the persons referred to have been fitted for it Paul does not say; what he does say is, that fitted for such a doom as they are, God has nevertheless endured them in much longsuffering, so that they at least cannot say, Why dost thou find fault? For
κατηρτισμένος = perfected, made quite fit or ripe, see
Luke 6:40,
1 Corinthians 1:10 :
cf. also
2 Timothy 3:17.
22.
What if God, &c.] The Gr. construction in
Romans 9:22-23 is broken and peculiar. Rendered nearly lit., the verses run:
But if God, choosing to demonstrate His wrath, and make known what He can do, bore with much longsuffering vessels of wrath, fitted unto ruin; and that He might make known the wealth of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He fore-prepared unto glory? The general drift of the passage, though thus grammatically peculiar, is yet clear.—The “
but” suggests a certain difference between the potter’s work and that of the Creator and Judge; q. d., “If the potter’s right is so absolute, while the clay is mere matter and so has no
demerit, the right of God over
guilty humanity is at least as absolute; and meantime, even so, it is exercised with longsuffering.”
willing]
having the will to. The Gr. verb is frequent of the sovereign Divine will and pleasure. See e.g.
Matthew 8:3;
1 Corinthians 12:18.
to shew]
to demonstrate. Same word as
Romans 9:17 (“
shew my power”), and
Romans 3:25 (“to
declare,” &c.). The justice and energy of His wrath against sin are both demonstrated in the doom of the impenitent.
endured, &c.] The special case of Pharaoh is in St Paul’s view, and is to be taken as an example. There we see on the one hand the sovereign will permitting sin to run its course, but on the other hand, in equal reality, warnings and appeals are addressed by God to a human conscience and will, time after time. From our point of view the two things are incompatible; but the Apostle assures us that both are
real, and therefore compatible.
the vessels] Lit.
vessels. But the article is rightly supplied. The two classes of “vessels” are exhaustive of mankind.—The word “vessel” is doubtless suggested here by the language of
Romans 9:21. See next note.
of wrath] i.e. “
connected with, devoted to, wrath.” So below, “
connected with, marked out for, mercy.” The genitive need not imply a metaphor, as if the “vessels” were “
filled with” wrath or mercy; such an explanation would be needlessly remote.—The same word in same construction occurs
Acts 9:15, where lit. “a vessel of choice;” and probably the metaphor does there appear in the next words—“to
bear my Name.” Cp. also
2 Corinthians 4:7;
1 Thessalonians 4:4, (where “vessel” = “body”;)
1 Peter 3:7. In those passages the metaphor is traceable to the idea of the body as the receptacle and casket, as it were, of the spirit. Here, as above said, the
whole reference appears to be to the imagery of the
potter’s work.
fitted]
Made ready, suitable. Such indeed every “vessel of wrath” will prove to have been. It is remarkable that St Paul does not say “which
He fitted.” A seemingly rigid logic may say that the lost must be as truly predestined to death as the saved to life; but such logic is faulty in its premisses:
we do not know enough of the Eternal Mind and the nature of things to reason so[42]. It is at least to be noted that here, while the “preparation” of the saved for glory is expressly ascribed to God, that of the lost for ruin is so stated as to avoid such ascription. Meanwhile the deepest consciousness of human hearts, awakened to eternal realities, acquits God and accuses self.—St Paul, however, does not
dwell on this. To
relieve mystery is only a passing aim with him here.
[42] See further, Appendix H.
destruction]
Ruin, perdition, the loss of the soul. See note on
Romans 2:12 (on the word “perish;” where the Gr. is the verb cognate to the noun here).
Romans 9:22.
Εἰ δὲ,
but if) This particle has this as its apodosis to be supplied at the end of
Romans 9:23 from
Romans 9:20 : God has much greater cause to complain concerning man, and man has less cause to expostulate with God [than the potter concerning the clay, and the clay with the potter]. Comp.
ἐὰν,
John 6:62, where also the apodosis is to be supplied. It is a question, but one implied, not expressed, with an ellipsis,
What reply hast thou to make [if God willing to show, etc., endured, etc.].—
θέλων,
willing) Corresponds to the,
His will,
Romans 9:19, and to,
He will,
Romans 9:18. Paul speaks
κατʼ ἄνθρωπον, [“after the manner of man:” or,
taking advantage of his opponent’s unavoidable admission] in the words of his opponent; and so
εἰ signifies
whereas, [since, as you must grant]. At the same time, we must observe that what he says of the vessels of wrath is more scanty, and of the vessels of mercy more copious;
willing to show, he says, not, [willing, putting forth His will]
that he might show, comp. next verse [where in the case of the vessels
of mercy, he says,
ἵνα γνωρίσῃ, though here
Romans 9:22 in the case of the vessels
of wrath, he says,
γνωρίσαι], and
Ephesians 2:7—
ἐνδείξασθαι—
τὀ δύνατον αὐτοῦ,
to show His power) These words are repeated from
Romans 9:17.—
τὴν δργὴν,
wrath) He does not say, the
riches of his wrath; comp.
Romans 9:23.—
τὸ δυνατὸν) This signifies, what He can do (
potentiam ‘might’) not what He
may do (potestatem ‘right’ [
ἐζουσία]).—
ἢνεγκεν,
endured) as He endured Pharaoh.—
ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ,
with much long-suffering) viz: in order that it might allure the wicked [the reprobate] from their state of alienation from Him to repentance, ch.
Romans 2:4;
2 Peter 3:9. God endures many bad men, in the enjoyment of great and long continued good fortune in this life, when He might at the very first have consigned them to death. The gate of mercy and grace is still open to them. This long-suffering, humanly speaking, precedes His “will to show His wrath,” nor does it merely follow it. His
enduring is not wont to be exercised until He is about
to show His wrath]: wherefore
ἤνεγκεν should be translated,
had endured [previous to His will to show His wrath.] By this very circumstance the question,
who hath resisted?Romans 9:19, is most powerfully refuted.—
ὀργῆς)
of wrath, which is not indeed without cause, but presupposes sins; he does not say,
of disgrace, nor
unto wrath, but
of wrath, [
i.e. the fault is
in themselves.]—
κατηρτισμένα,
fitted) It denotes the disposition [fitness] internal and full, but now no longer free [no longer now liable to change], not the destination; he does not say,
which Heπροκατήρτισε,
previously fitted, although he says in the next verse,
which he prepared, comp.
Romans 9:19, ch.
Romans 11:22, note;
Matthew 25:34, with
Matthew 25:41, and
Acts 13:46, with
Acts 13:48. This is distinct from the efficient cause; what is said merely refers to the state in which God finds the reprobate, when He brings upon them His wrath.—
εἰς ἀπώλειαν,
to destruction) The antithesis is,
Romans 9:23,
unto glory.
Verses 22-24. -
What if (literally,
but if, involving an anacoluthon
) God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels (not, as in the Authorized Version,
the vessels)
of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy which he afore prepared unto glory; whom he also called, even us, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. "And" at the beginning of ver. 23 is omitted in the uncial B, and there is considerable authority of versions and Fathers for rejecting it. Without it the sentence runs better, and its drift becomes more apparent. The purpose expressed in ver. 23 thus comes out distinctly as the grand ultimate Divine purpose, to which the display of wrath and power spoken of in the previous verse is but subsidiary; and this drift becomes the more apparent, if we supply in English, as we may do, "while" before "willing" in ver. 22. Thus the drift would be, "What If God, while willing to exhibit his wrath and manifest his power, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath that had become fitted for destruction, in order that he might manifest the riches of his glory," etc. The idea expressed by "endured," etc., seems suggested by Pharaoh's case (see on ver. 17 with regard to the word
διετηρήθης in the LXX., which the apostle appears here to retain the idea of, though he varied from it); but it is the Jewish nation of his own day that he has now in view. They were rejected from inheritance of the promises, and under Divine wrath; as he says in another place, "The wrath had come upon them to the uttermost" (
1 Thessalonians 2:16). But they were still borne with; they were not finally cut off; and what if their present rejection were but subservient to the great purpose of mercy to the true Israel? The thought, hinted here, is carried out in ch. 11, where even the idea is further entertained of Israel itself as a nation, after judgment endured, coming into God's true fold at last, according to the design of God, through ways inscrutable by us, to "have mercy upon all." The forms of expression used in the passage before us are to be noted in support of the view we have taken of St. Paul's general meaning. "The vessels of wrath" are said to be "fitted to destruction" (
κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν); of the "vessels of mercy" it is said that God "afore prepared" them unto glory. Predestination to salvation is certainly a doctrine of St. Paul, but he nowhere intimates predestination to reprobation. Further, "Non dicit quae
προκατήρτισε, sod
κατηρτισμένα: praescinditur a causa efficiente: tantum dicitur quales inveniat Deus quibus tram infert" (Bengel). Lastly, it may be observed that, though
α} προπητοίμασενεἰς δόξαν carries with it the idea of individual salvation, yet this only comes in as the outcome and ultimate purpose of the calling of nations or races of men. The drift of the preceding argument remains still what it has been stated to be. Romans 9:22
Willing (θέλων)
Although willing, not because. Referring not to the determinate purpose of God, but to His spontaneous will growing out of His holy character. In the former sense, the meaning would be that God's long-suffering was designed to enhance the final penalty. The emphatic position of willing prepares the way for the contrast with long-suffering. Though this holy will would lead Him to show His wrath, yet He withheld His wrath and endured.
Vessels of wrath (σκεύη ὀργῆς)
Not filled with wrath, nor prepared to serve for a manifestation of divine wrath; but appertaining to wrath. Such as by their own acts have fallen under His wrath. ComparePsalm 2:9.
Fitted (κατηρτισμένα)
Lit., adjusted. See on mending,Matthew 4:21; perfect, see onMatthew 21:16; see onLuke 6:40; see on1 Peter 5:10. Not fitted by God for destruction, but in an adjectival sense, ready, ripe for destruction, the participle denoting a present state previously formed, but giving no hint of how it has been formed. An agency of some kind must be assumed. That the objects of final wrath had themselves a hand in the matter may be seen from1 Thessalonians 2:15,1 Thessalonians 2:16. That the hand of God is also operative may be inferred from the whole drift of the chapter. "The apostle has probably chosen this form because the being ready certainly arises from a continual reciprocal action between human sin and the divine judgment of blindness and hardness. Every development of sin is a net-work of human offenses and divine judgments" (Lange).
Links
Romans 9:22 InterlinearRomans 9:22 Parallel Texts
Romans 9:22 NIVRomans 9:22 NLTRomans 9:22 ESVRomans 9:22 NASBRomans 9:22 KJV
Romans 9:22 Bible AppsRomans 9:22 ParallelRomans 9:22 Biblia ParalelaRomans 9:22 Chinese BibleRomans 9:22 French BibleRomans 9:22 German Bible
Bible Hub
