It is also worthwhile to take note of slight differences of wording, which show a change of emphasis. In Rom. 9:21, the AV reads, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" The NKJV retains the same sense. The NASB inserts the word "use," which restricts the claim of sovereignty to purposes of utility. "Dishonour" becomes "common," and so neutralises the negative impact of reprobation: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" The NIV goes one step further, and by a slight change in syntax diminishes the power or right of the potter over the clay: "Does 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?" In other words, the power the potter has over the clay is confined to His making them for different uses, whereas the passage should be understood as teaching that the potter has an absolute right over the clay, and in the exercise of that right He may make of them what He pleases. The ESV retains the idea of "use," reverts back to the word "dishonour," but then corrupts the idea of absolute right in a deceptive rendering of the negative: "Has the potter no right over the clay?" So that the sense is, He has some right over what He has made.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."