Jeremiah uses the authority-of-the-potter-over-the-clay metaphor to explain that God himself may change course and treat his people differently than he had predicted if they either repent from, or turn toward, evil. This point is especially striking in the background of Romans 9, where, even after calling unbelieving Israelites “not my people” and “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” Paul goes on to express his heart’s desire and his prayer to God that they might still be saved (Rom 10:1). In other words, though the Lord has promised to uproot Israel and remove its branch from his tree (Rom 11:11-24), as soon as they repent and set their hope in Jesus the Messiah, he stands more than ready to smush their clay and begin again with them as a clean and holy vessel.

Earlier this week, I completed my 2022 Bible readthrough, which was nothing short of a delightful romp through the Scriptures. I always appreciate seeing what new connections the Lord may bring to my attention as I read rapidly.
And one thing that especially struck me this year was the potter metaphor used of the Lord throughout the prophets. This may have been on my mind because my church small group recently studied Romans 9 and discussed the potter metaphor in Rom 9:20-21. I had not fully considered before how Paul draws this imagery from the Old Testament.
When Paul says “Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Rom 9:20), he appears to be drawing directly on Isaiah 29:16: “You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, ‘He did not make me’; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, ‘He has no understanding’?” The context of Isaiah 29 is that of God’s people drawing near to him in their rituals while their hearts remain far from him, attempting to hide from their maker their dark deeds. Paul uses it to support his larger point that not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. Just because God made some people ethnically Jewish, but still exerts his wrath on their unbelief, does not make him unjust.
The connection I found even more interesting is that with Jeremiah 18:1-12, which I will quote in full:
The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel.
Read More

“Woes” are especially prominent in the prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. As for the New Testament, there are woes in Revelation. But the vast majority of New Testament woes are spoken by Christ in the Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke. Our Lord regularly pronounced woes on the wicked, which highlights that He was in fact a prophet, like the prophets of old.

In the book of Habakkuk, the prophet forthrightly complained to God not once but twice. He first complained about Israel’s wickedness (Habakkuk 1:1-4). And in response, God announced He would send the Chaldeans in judgment (1:5-11). (The Chaldeans are known also as the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which lasted from 626 to 529 BC.)
That is not what Habakkuk was hoping to hear. So he complained for a second time (1:12-17), saying that for God to use wicked people in this way is contrary to His nature. God then gave His second response to Habakkuk (2:2-20).
In this second response, God made clear that He would surely judge the wicked, including Babylon. He is indeed holy, as Habakkuk had rightfully declared in 1:12—“my Holy One” (NASB 1995). By no means would God leave the Chaldeans unpunished. As part of God’s response to Habakkuk, He pronounced five “woes” upon Babylon (Habakkuk 2:6-20). Such pronouncements of judgment are common in the Bible, especially in the prophetic literature.
The Five Woes (Habakkuk 2:6-20)
The first woe upon Babylon is for their theft (Habakkuk 2:6-8). God says that Babylon’s taking land from others is a “loan” (v. 6), and the “creditors” will rise up and take Babylon as “spoil” (vv. 7-8). Babylon was conquering nation after nation, taking their land and possessions. But the creditors will come looking for their money—“Will not your creditors rise up suddenly, And those who collect from you awaken? Indeed, you will become plunder for them” (v. 7). God is saying the creditors will come and “plunder” Babylon. Babylon’s time will come—“Because you have looted many nations, All the remainder of the peoples will loot you — Because of human bloodshed and violence done to the land, To the town and all its inhabitants” (v. 8).
God pronounces a second woe, this time for their greed (Habakkuk 2:9-11). He says, “Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house To put his nest on high, To be delivered from the hand of calamity!” (v. 9). The “house” represents the Babylonian Empire. Though not always clear in the English translations, very similar Hebrew language in v. 9 is used in Proverbs 15:27—“He who profits illicitly troubles his own house, But he who hates bribes will live.” Since God is the sovereign Judge of the earth, He ensures that illicit gain brings trouble on one’s house. The Chaldeans built up their house “by cutting off many peoples,” and they devised “a shameful thing” (v. 10). So God said that “the stone will cry out from the wall, and the rafter will answer it from the framework” (v. 11). That which made up the empire would cry out against Babylon (maybe referring to rebellion).
God announces a third woe for Babylon’s violence (Habakkuk 2:12-14). This woe is on the one “who builds a city with bloodshed and founds a town with violence” (v. 12), that is, building an empire unjustly. Founding a city was often considered an act of arrogance in Scripture, especially when built by violent men. This is seen with Cain (Genesis 4:17), Nimrod the mighty hunter (Genesis 10:8-12), Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), and Pharoah, who forced Israelite slaves to build cities (Exodus 1:11). Habakkuk 2:13 asks, “Is it not indeed from the LORD of hosts That peoples toil for fire, And nations grow weary for nothing?” The troubles of the nations are “from the LORD.”
This is followed by a verse that may seem out of place within the context here of God’s woes—“For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea” (Habakkuk 2:14). Yet while it may seem out of place, it is intentionally placed here at the center of the woes as a reminder that God is working all things to make His glory known among the earth, including His judgment. This is similar to Old Testament language about God’s glory filling the temple (Exodus 40:34-25; 1 Kings 8:11) and almost identical to some other passages (Numbers 14:21; Psalm 72:19).
Yet the closest parallel is Isaiah 11:9—“They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea.” The context there is not judgment but the conversion of the nations (Isaiah 11:10-12) and justice throughout the earth (11:4-5, 13-15). God’s judgment and salvation are connected, as God is glorified in both judgment and salvation, and salvation is from judgment.
God announces a fourth woe on those who take advantage of their neighbors, using the imagery of making them drunk (Habakkuk 2:15-17). God says, “Woe to you who make your neighbors drink, Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk So as to look on their nakedness!” (v. 15). The Babylonians treated other nations harshly, which is compared to intoxicating them to humiliate them. In response to this, the Babylonians would suffer the same fate:
You will be filled with disgrace rather than honor. Now you yourself drink and expose your own nakedness. The cup in the LORD’S right hand will come around to you, And utter disgrace will come upon your glory. (Habakkuk 2:16)
Just as Babylon disgraced others, so Babylon would be disgraced. The language of “cup” usually refers to God’s wrath and judgment, meaning the Lord’s wrath would come upon Babylon. As v. 17 says of this judgment, “For the violence done to Lebanon will overwhelm you, And the devastation of its beasts by which you terrified them.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Samuel D. James |
Saturday, January 15, 2022
My parents seem far more willing than I to engage a person and tell them to make a situation materially better, whereas I am far more willing than my parents to use the digital marketplace as a weapon, to “get back” at the people who fail me in some way by telling others that these people are untrustworthy. The older generation acts as if the proper recipient of their frustration is the institution itself and that asking them to make it better is reasonable and right. The younger generation believes that their anger should be directed toward the audience, and that the goal of complaining in these spaces is not to get anything fixed by the institution but to see the institution punished by others.

At the risk of leaning too far into generational stereotypes, which are indeed lazy and perpetuate slipshod thinking, I’m going to observe yet another difference between people of my age and of my parents’ age.
On multiple occasions I have seen my parents, my in-laws, and other Boomer and Silent Generation-era adults ask to speak to a manager. The order at the restaurant was wrong, or took way too long. A shipment was damaged, someone was over-billed, or the hotel room was not clean. Sometimes the necessity of such a tense confrontation is obvious, but often I’ve cringed when the older people I’m with decide to complain, especially since complaints almost always land hardest on employees who make the smallest wages and have the littlest control of the situation (as a veteran of the fast food industry, I can verify this).
My wife and I are far, far more likely than either of our parents to accept an unsatisfactory experience without complaining to the people in charge of it. We’ve eaten the wrong order, accepted an inaccurately described package, and put up with being put out. I’m sure my parents and in-laws have done this too, but the point is that the idea of complaining to a person and trying to get something wrong fixed seems to be more plausible to the older people in my life.
You know why that’s interesting to me? Because I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve known an older family member to take to the Internet to complain. I don’t think my parents have written a Yelp review in their lives. I think there’s been a few negative Amazon reviews, but the ratios of Amazon purchases/negative reviews and restaurant experiences/in-person complaints don’t even begin to compare. Again, these are generational stereotypes that by definition are not true of everyone. But if you look through Yelp reviews and if you use Twitter or Facebook to read what people are saying about community businesses, it does tend to be true that the complaints, the criticisms, and—more to the point of this post—the expressions of outrage and personal injury skew closer to my age than my parents’ age.
What I’ve noticed is that my parents seem far more willing than I to engage a person and tell them to make a situation materially better, whereas I am far more willing than my parents to use the digital marketplace as a weapon, to “get back” at the people who fail me in some way by telling others that these people are untrustworthy. The older generation acts as if the proper recipient of their frustration is the institution itself and that asking them to make it better is reasonable and right. The younger generation believes that their anger should be directed toward the audience, and that the goal of complaining in these spaces is not to get anything fixed by the institution but to see the institution punished by others.

Freddie observes that canceling someone online virtually never dispenses any material good to anyone. In this sense, canceling somebody is not “justice,” because there is literally no justice to be done on behalf of any victim, real or imagined.
Read More