Who Prepares the Vessels of Wrath for Destruction?

In Romans 9:22 the apostle Paul is in the middle of his response to a question of God’s fairness regarding his sovereign choice to have mercy upon whom he desires and to harden whom he desires and still hold those whom he hardens accountable. Borrowing from the potter and clay motif common in the Old Testament, Paul argues that this questioning of God’s sovereign plan is invalid. In verse 22 he takes up another line of argumentation that demonstrates that God is more than fair in His dealings with man. God patiently endures "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in order "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy." The question is, "Who has prepared these vessels of wrath for destruction?"

Difficulties arise when attempting to answer this question, for as most commentators agree, Paul’s concern is not with who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction, rather he makes known that their condition deserves destruction and they are ready to receive it (Cranfield 495-496; Dunn 567; Harrison 107; Mounce 202; Murray 36). There are three possibilities concerning who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction; it is either man (the vessel himself), Satan, or God. Some interpreters see a combination of the agents at work.

The first proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of the vessels themselves. Most of the arguments for this view rest on the assumption that the preparation is done either by God or man, and that the syntax seems to rule out God.

It is clear in Verse 23 that God is the one who prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. Verse 22, however, does not identify the preparer of the vessels for destruction. This difference appears to indicate that it is not God preparing the vessels of wrath. Cranfield notes that in verse 23 the Greek verb employed by Paul is a compound verb in the aorist active indicative, "thus clearly emphasizing the divine predetermining" (495). If God was the agent of preparation in both cases there would be no need for the variations. Harrison agrees "because he [Paul] avoids involving God in this case, whereas he is involved in showing mercy to the objects of his mercy" (107).
There are differences in the grammar and choice of words in the Greek between verse 23 and 22, yet in the English "prepared" is the result in both cases. Morris, though not convinced himself, notes it is possible that the Greek word translated "prepared" in verse 22 is in the middle voice (368). If this is the case than a more accurate rendering is "vessels of wrath which prepared themselves for destruction."

Against this view some understand "prepared" to be in the passive voice. The use of the passive voice usually indicates that an agent other than the subject has acted upon the subject. If this understanding is correct it is not likely that the vessels are preparing themselves for destruction.

The context of chapter 9 also makes this view unlikely. In all the scriptural examples leading up to verse 22 God is seen as the one who chooses and hardens. It was God’s choice that made the difference between Isaac and Ishmael. The same is true of Jacob and Esau. In fact it is even more apparent that God’s choosing is quite apart from human works for God chose Jacob over Esau while they were yet unborn. God’s choice of Jacob surely did not depend on the deeds of either vessel for they had not yet done anything good or evil. The example of Moses and Pharaoh demonstrates God’s active role in hardening a person, in effect preparing them for destruction (Moo 598).

The second proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of Satan. Hendriksen sees the explicit reference to God in verse 23 as presenting a contrast in order to show that in verse 22 "the people themselves–in cooperation with Satan!–were the active agents" (328). This view has much in common with that above. The arguments for excluding God as an option are the same: since God is clearly the agent of preparation in verse 23 and the agent in verse 22 is hidden, it is not likely that God could be the one who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction. This leaves the possibility of either man or Satan. "When the [vessels of wrath] are described, a perfect passive participle is used . . . which hides the agent who, therefore, is not God -- Satan fitted them" (Lenski 624). Since the participle is passive, man himself is eliminated as an option. Satan is the only remaining possible agent.

Against this view it should be noted that Satan is not found in the immediate context of the verse. Paul does not have him in mind here. Therefore, Satan is not likely an option. The best defense against this view lies in the strength of the other arguments.

The third proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of God. Verse 22 comes on the heels of God’s dealings with Pharaoh and the illustration of the potter. Verses 15-18 bracket the example of Pharaoh with the idea that God freely exercises His choice of whom to have mercy upon and whom to harden. This demonstrates that it was the work of God to harden Pharaoh’s heart.

In verse 19 Paul anticipates an objection–if God is the one who hardens a person, how can that person be held responsible for his condition (which deserves destruction)? Paul at this point does not deny that it is indeed the work of God that hardens the person, instead he makes the point that man, as a created being, does not have the right to question God, his creator. If God was not the one who hardened, the one who prepared vessels of wrath for destruction, then this fact would be Paul’s response to the objection. Paul does not reject his opponents understanding of the situation, but he is rejecting their demands to submit the ways of god to human judgement.
The language of verse 21 does not sound as severe as condemning one to damnation, but the parallel between the example of Pharaoh and the potter illustration shows that the vessel made for common use is, like Pharaoh, deserving condemnation. Moo says of verse 21 that "Paul is asserting God’s right to make from the mass of humanity (the lump) some persons who are destined to inherit salvation and others who are destined for wrath and condemnation" (603). The parallels continue into verse 22 and it is here that the vessels prepared for wrath are prepared so by God, just as the potter prepared the vessels for common use, just as God hardened Pharaoh. Murray concurs, "‘Vessels of wrath’ and ‘vessels of mercy’ are best regarded in the terms of verse 21" (33).

Against this view is the explicit claim of verse 23 that God has prepared the vessels of mercy opposed to the lack of identifying the agent who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction. Calvin adequately deals with this objection:

Though in the second clause he asserts more expressly, that it is God who prepares the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction; there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate give up or cast themselves into destruction; but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot (370).
It is also noted that verse 22 is connected to the previous verses with a conjunction that "indicates an element of opposition and implies that he [Paul] regards his illustration [of the potter and the clay] as inadequate" (Cranfield 493). However, Moo effectively counters this point:

The [conjunction] introducing this verse is often given a slight adversative force and taken to imply some distinction between the image of the potter and its application to the ways of God. But this seems overly subtle; Paul appears to use [it] with simple transitional force as he moves from the illustration to its application (604).

Noting the parallels between the hardening of Pharaoh and the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction is not enough to prove that this is all God’s doing. Even though it seems clear that God is doing the hardening of Pharaoh Romans 9, there are other passages in the Old Testament context that record Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Mounce 200).

The first proposed solution presented above is well supported. Many commentators have made good arguments that are based on the text. The original language and its grammar have been addressed. Yet this is not the best view. The arguments that try to show a break in the logic and parallels to the preceding verses do not do justice to the context and its importance. This is the main reason for the differences between those who support the first view and those who support the third view. The second proposed solution fails to be as well supported. Satan does not appear present in Paul’s thinking. More than for flaws in argumentation, this view is discredited by the support mounted in favor of the other views.

The best view is the third proposed solution. God is not explicitly named as the one who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction in verse 22, but the parallels with the preceding verse make it clear that Paul presents God as having chosen some people to be objects of mercy and some to be objects of wrath. Those chosen for mercy are being prepared for glory, while those chosen for wrath are being prepared, by God, for destruction. It should be noted, however, that good arguments can be made to see certain elements in the text, such as the use of the conjunction, as supporting either the first or the last view. When these arguments seem evenly weighted, they should be interpreted in the manner that supports the position best supported by the context and good theology. When the text is allowed to say what it seems to be saying, the third view emerges as the best view.