top of page

Romans 9 - Pharaoh

Some Calvinists believe that Paul is using Pharaoh as an illustration of God’s hardening an individual unto reprobation. That position is called Supralapsarian. Concerning reprobation that means that God actively or forcibly hardens those that He has actively predestined to eternal damnation totally independently of anything that originates from the person. Supralapsarians use “…it does not depend on he who wills or runs…” to support this position. Yet, as we’ve seen above, “…it does not depend on he who wills or runs…” has to do with God’s mercy and compassion, not His hardening. Infralapsarian Calvinists hold that God does not actively or forcibly harden anybody unto reprobation, He merely allows them to behave according to their originally depraved natures, which leads inexorably to their damnation. ANYONE who is saved is saved by the monergistic regenerating activity of God, but anyone who is damned is damned because God “let them alone” so to speak. Let us be clear about where John Calvin stood on this issue:

 

The following quotes are from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion:

 

  • "I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will." Book 3, Ch 23, s. 4

  • "With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed.” Book 3, Ch 23, s. 5

  • "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say is predestined either to life or to death.” Book 3, ch 21, s. 5

  • "…we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction. ...he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation." Book 3, Ch 21, s. 7

  • "Indeed many...accept election in such terms as to deny that anyone is condemned. But they do this very ignorantly and childishly, since election itself could not stand except as set over against reprobation.” Book 3, Ch 23, s 1.

  • "Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Book 3, Ch 23, s. 1

  • "...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan...God's secret plan is the cause of hardening." Book 2, Ch 23, s. 1

  • "But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding." Book 3, Ch 23, s. 6

 

It seems clear that Calvin was Supralapsarian.

 

Westminster Confession of Faith: III: Of God’s Eternal Decree, Item 1. “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

 

The WCF is very contradictory. Stating it in elegant, reasonable sounding language does not make it less contradictory. God unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass yet is not the author of sin and does no violence to the will of the creature. How can “God ordains whatsoever “ exist at the same time as, “is not the author of”? THAT is a TRUE contradiction! On the one hand Infralapsarian Calvinism proposes that God damns simply by refraining from showing mercy, and does no violence to the will of the creature, (“…is not the author of…”) but on the other hand, Supralapsarian Calvinists maintain that Pharaoh’s case illustrates an active hardening on God’s part (“…God ordains whatsoever…”). So God preordained Pharaoh’s choices but at the same time is not the author of Pharaoh’s choices?!?!??

 

When non-Calvinists point out the contradiction involved here and say that the Calvinist God is unjust when He damns people for no reason having to do with the person, whether actively (Supralapsarian) or passively (Infralapsarian), the Calvinist typically responds with Romans 9:20 “…who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, “Why hast thou made me thus?” As a non-Calvinist in this situation, I can assure the reader I am not “replying against God”. I am replying against Reform Theology in general and John Calvin and the WCF, as given in the quotes above, in particular. The Calvinist use of this verse (9:20) in this way is a cop-out. Not only does it simply deny a universal sense of justice, but it’s designed to deflect the questioner from the REAL issue, which is the contradictory nature of the Calvinist position, and only seeks to establish that God hardens for no reason, or it would be more accurate to say, for inscrutable, mysterious reasons known only to the eternal mind of God, good and necessary reasons, which reasons He does not reveal to His creatures. Either way, Reformed Theology endorses the very thing it theoretically denies, which is that there is “[no] violence offered to the will of the creatures.” Furthermore, I would point to the fact that if no violence were done to the will of the creature, then the creature would not ask, “Why?” The fact that the creature asks, “Why?” illustrates that violence IS done to the will of the creature. The question is, is God just when He does so?

 

Romans 9:17 – “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”

 

Calvinists, especially Supralapsarian Calvinists, use this verse to support the idea that the very reason for Pharaoh’s existence, the reason he was created, was so that God could harden him and thereby show His power and glory throughout all the earth.

 

But if we read this quote in it’s Old Testament context. God, through Moses, is telling Pharaoh, “For THIS TIME, I will send all my plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth. FOR IF BY NOW I HAD PUT FORTH MY HAND AND STRUCK YOU AND YOUR PEOPLE WITH PESTILENCE, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT OFF FROM THE EARTH. But, indeed, FOR THIS REASON I HAVE ALLOWED YOU TO REMAIN, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth. Still you EXALT YOURSELF against My people by not letting them go.” (Ex 9:14-17 NASB, emphases mine)

 

What was Pharaoh “raised up” from? Does this refer to his life, his choices, and his very existence? Not at all. It means that God saved him from the pestilence. God did not create Pharaoh and raise him up to the throne of Egypt just so He could destroy him. God saved Pharaoh from the pestilence, He raised him up, so that He could continue to show him (Pharaoh) His power and punish him for his unrepentant and arrogant heart. God says Pharaoh was EXALTING HIMSELF.

 

Rotherham’s translation of this passage in his The Emphasized Bible is as follows: “For now might I have put forth my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence, and thou shouldest have secretly disappeared from the earth; but indeed for this very purpose I have let thee remain, for the purpose of showing thee my might, and that my name might be celebrated in all the earth.” Adam Clarke translated this passage thusly, “But truly, on this very account, I have caused thee to subsist, that I may…”

 

Concerning the hardening of Pharaoh Greg Boyd says, “The root meaning of the Hebrew word “to harden” (chazaq) is “to strengthen.” God hardens people by strengthening the resolve in their own heart. Before God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, Scripture says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Similarly, long before God hardened the Canaanites hearts, he had been tolerating their freely chosen wickedness and hardness toward him (cf. Gen. 15:16, Deut 9:4,5, Deut 18:9-12, Deut 8:19,20). God strives with humans to turn toward him, but there is a point where humans become hopeless (Gen. 6:3–8; Rom. 1:24–32). At this point God’s strategy changes from trying to change them to using them in their wickedness for his own providential purposes.”

 

Alwyn Lau says, “The words translated as 'harden' ('hazaq', 'kabed' and 'qashah') generally mean to make something strong or heavy or to encourage (reinforce) someone. In fact, the word used in Rom 9:17, 'hazaq', is ELSEWHERE in the Old Testament translated as 'encourage' or 'strengthen' (e.g. Deut 1:38, 2Sam 11:25, 2Chr 35:2, etc. - just pick up any concordance and look up the word 'encourage'). This fact should instantly stop us in our deterministic reading of the 'hardening' passages” (http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/rom9(hardening).html).

 

Consequently, Paul does not preach some irrelevant and inscrutable condition of God’s will, proving that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth” (which actually refers only to “mercy”), but shows that God actively, not passively, hardens for reasons found directly in human behavior, which in the case of the Pharaoh was NOT related to the purpose of his existence, but was directly related to his arrogance, as Ex 9:17 shows.

 

God dealt with Nebuchadnezzar along the same lines. “…the Most High God granted sovereignty, grandeur, glory and majesty to Nebuchadnezzar…But when [because] his heart was lifted up and his spirit became so proud (other translations render “lifted up” as “hardened”) that he behaved arrogantly, he was deposed from his royal throne and his glory was taken away from him…until he recognized that the Most High God is ruler over the realm of mankind and that He sets over it whomever He wishes.” (Daniel 5:18-21)

 

Nebuchadnezzar’s sovereignty, grandeur, glory and majesty was granted by God’s choice but his hardening was directly related to his pride and arrogance, and resulted in his fall, even as was the case with Pharaoh. Nebuchadnezzar repented and was restored (mercy conditioned on repentance). But Pharaoh did not repent and was destroyed (wrath conditioned on unrepentant actions)

 

The Infralapsarian position has some problems in that God’s hardening is given in active voice, and is given as a logical equation with God’s mercy in Rom. 9:18. Both sides are in active voice.

 

Rom 9:18 – “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

 

The mercy spoken of by Paul refers to Jacob (Israel) during the deliverance from Egypt, AND it refers to God saving Pharaoh from the pestilence. The hardening refers to God using Pharaoh’s (Egypt) arrogance and pride to proclaim His name throughout the whole earth. (Exodus 9:16) When taken out of context, this verse doesn’t tell us why or when God has mercy and why and when God hardens. Supralapsarian Calvinists take it out of context and so they read into this verse that God monergistically shows mercy to individuals and monergistically hardens individuals whom He will based on immutable decree in eternity past. Infralapsarian Calvinists simply deny the grammar, which plainly indicates that God actively hardens whom He desires. Paul, in context, quotes Exodus 33:19, which indicates that Israel was God’s chosen people by God’s choice, (mercy - not dependant on he who wills or runs) but the text also indicates that God’s dealings with Israel, though they are chosen, are on a conditional basis and that if it wasn’t for the intercession of Moses God would have wiped them out because of their sin and rebellion. We also see that God’s choice of Israel was predicated on Abraham’s faith when he offered up Isaac, and God’s promise to Abraham was God’s response to Abraham’s action, that is, conditional to it, and that Israel’s deliverance from Egypt was God remaining faithful to his promise to Abraham (Ex 6:5), and that Moses’ intercession was based on appealing to God’s promise to Abraham (Ex 32:13,14). So neither God’s mercy nor His hardening is monergistically unconditional. As if that isn’t enough, Paul’s reference to Jeremiah 18 in verses 20 and 21 gives us an explicit view that is very, very different from Reformed Theology.

 

NEXT: The Potter and the Clay

 

bottom of page