The hardening verses of Exodus: a discussion

By Angus Harley

The series of verses in Exodus on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart have been a battleground over the decades.  They refer to God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and, alternatively, Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Calvinists, such as G. K. Beale, [1] believe that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he then hardened his own heart. The Arminian S. C. Marcy takes issue with Beale, and attributes the initiation of the hardening process to Pharaoh, and only then, in judgment, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.[2] Others, such as D. A. Carson, think there is no express order of operation in the Exodus text, preferring a perspectival argument that sometimes God is the source and then sometimes Pharaoh. No order is expressed.[3]

In full disclosure, my position is similar in many points to Beale’s, yet there are aspects that I add to, qualify, or disagree with. The position that I defend in this paper is that it is evident from Exodus that there are a number of programmatic references to Yahweh orchestrating the entire sequence of events connected to those hardening verses. He is the conductor of the symphony inexorably leading all things to do with hardening to their inevitable and prophesied outcome. That being said, I think both Arminianism and Carson have some strong points.

Because of the traditional preoccupation with Romans 9 in relation to Pharaoh’s heart being hardened, I need to underscore that this article is concerned mainly with the hardening verses in Exodus and not with Romans 9 as such. Even so, as a new approach, I, personally, will evaluate Romans 9 and its comment on Pharaoh from an NCT perspective.

One final comment. In this article, I am taking my time to look upon layer-upon-layer of arguments so as to be thorough. There is deliberately repetition in order to remind the reader of certain principles.

THREE VIEWS

As stated in the intro, there are, at least, three views that are touted concerning the hardening verses in Exodus: Arminian, Calvinistic, and, perspectival.

Arminian

To Arminianism, it is plain that an order is indicated: man hardens his own heart, so that, in judgment of man, God subsequently hardens man. Marcy accuses Beale of injecting into the text his deterministic, Calvinistic, presuppositions that preclude man’s free act of willing and force the false concept of an eternal, irrevocable, divine decree.[4]

Calvinistic

Beale thinks that it was God who first hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and then Pharaoh, as a result, hardened his own heart. To Beale, God’s act of hardening Pharaoh’s heart amounts to him investing Pharaoh’s heart with overwhelming power. Under the unrelenting influence of this power, Pharaoh’s capitulates and then willfully chooses to rebel against Yahweh. That is Pharaoh’s side of the hardening coin, so to speak.[5]

Perspectival

D. A. Carson believes there is no discernible pattern or order when it comes to the hardening verses in Exodus, and that what we have is, essentially, perspectives. He writes:

“The first is the reason God gives as to why Pharaoh will not be impressed by the miracles that Moses performs. God declares, “I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” (4:21). During the succeeding chapters, the form of expression varies: not only “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart” (7:3), but also “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” or “was hard” (7:13, 22; 8:19, etc.) and “he hardened his heart” (8:15, 32, etc). No simple pattern is discernible in these references. On the one hand, we cannot say that the pattern works up from “Pharaoh hardened his heart” to “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” to “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (as if God’s hardening were nothing more than the divine judicial confirmation of a pattern the man had chosen for himself); on the other hand, we cannot say that the pattern simply works down from “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” to “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” to “Pharaoh hardened his heart” (as if Pharaoh’s self-imposed hardening was nothing more than the inevitable out-working of the divine decree).”[6]

Carson’s view is rejecting both the Arminian and Calvinistic orders that are imposed on the text of Exodus. This is ironic, for the above quote comes from the Calvinistic website called Monergism and he is a self-professing Calvinist.

What these three distinct views do underscore is the complex nature of these hardening verses and any attempt to find an order of operation. That is why the first part of the paper is dedicated to investigating the hardening verses in Exodus, peeling back the issues layer-by-layer. Only after this, the paper will then look at potential solutions to how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, the mechanism involved. In the final section, the paper will discuss Romans 9’s comment on Pharaoh’s hardened heart, comparing and contrasting it to the Exodus narrative.

THE VERSES IN THEIR EXODUS CONTEXT

By the time of Exodus, the Israelites are enslaved in Egypt, but the time is ripening for Yahweh, by Moses’ leadership, to lead Israel out of Egypt in remembrance of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exo.1-2). Upon this, Moses is given his mission by God via the revelation of the burning bush and the giving of the name ‘Yahweh’ (Exo.3:1-18). God is ready as ‘Yahweh’ to bring to pass his covenant promise to the fathers.

Upon this background, we get the first mention of Pharaoh’s obdurance as observed by Yahweh:

19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. 20 So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go. (Exo.3:19-20)

This is a programmatic statement as the ensuing context will reveal. By ‘programmatic’ is meant that it reveals God’s unrelenting, prophesied, plan that comes to pass, which states that Yahweh will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will rebel, and God will bring judgments down on Pharaoh’s heart, eventually to destroy him. The king of Egypt will harden his heart, and, consequently, Yahweh will bring the judgments of miracles down upon him. It bears repeating that these miracles are not mercies but are the anger of God in action. They are designed to oppress and judge the king in his obdurance, to make him relent so that he might let the Israelites go. Another factor tied to these two verses is that the hardening process, or that of obdurance, is not limited to the mere terms that traditionally are cited to convey ‘to harden’. There are other terms and concepts, also actions, attitudes, and events, that are tantamount to Pharaoh hardening his heart, or God hardening Pharaoh’s heart.

In Exodus 4, Moses is, rather reluctantly, set apart as God’s prophet to Pharaoh. Once again, the programmatic nature of Yahweh’s intentions is stated:

21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”

Moses’ part is to perform all the wonders before Pharaoh that Yahweh gave him the power to do. These will include both the miracles that are called the Ten Plagues and the miracle of turning a rod into a serpent (see 7:8-13). In this we see that, God’s message and his miraculous judgments are delegated and mediated through the prophet and leader Moses (and Aaron who acts as Moses’ spokesman). We see for the first time the use of the hardening terminology: God will harden Pharaoh’s heart (4:21).

Israel was yet to be convinced of Moses’ leadership, and to that end, Yahweh instructed Moses to perform the two miracles of turning the rod into a serpent and of transforming his hand from leprous to non-leprous (4:1-9). Yet, it is also said that if the Israelites will not believe after the first two miracles that a third of turning the water of the Nile into blood should be performed. The third was not necessary, however (4:10-31). We are not told in context that the Israelites were obdurant, nor that they hardened their hearts. Indeed, after Moses performed the two wonders of turning the rod into a serpent and transforming his leprous hand, the Israelites believed that he was Yahweh’s chosen man.

Pharaoh’s obdurance is on display, without the use of the hardening terms, in Exodus 5. Pharaoh refused to listen to Moses’ request and God’s command, declaring, ” “Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and besides, I will not let Israel go” ” (v2). As a consequence, the Israelites are further persecuted by Pharaoh. They then complain against Moses’ leadership, which leads to Moses complaining to God about not delivering Israel. It would seem at this stage that both Israel’s actions and Moses’ words to Yahweh are not examples of hardness but of unbelief (vv3ff.). They are not rebelling like Pharaoh, digging their heels in and doubling down on hatred.

In Exodus 6:1, there is yet another confirmation of the programmatic nature of Yahweh’s actions:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.”

This compulsion was necessary as the king of Egypt was obdurant against Yahweh.

Upon this statement, God once more confirms his covenant commitment as Yahweh to his firstborn, Israel, according to the promises to the fathers (6:2-6).

Exodus 7 begins with yet another programmatic statement:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. 2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharaoh that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.” (7:1-5)

Here we see again “will harden” (v3). It is after this that hardening actually takes place (v13), for “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” after rejecting Moses’ miracle with the rod. The Egyptian magicians had turned their rods into serpents, but Moses’ snake consumed their snakes. This is the first citation of the hardening terminology that applies in live-time to Pharaoh. V14a uses once more the hardening terminology, stating his heart was hardened/stubborn, presumably linking to what was said before in v13. On that basis, Yahweh predicts that Pharaoh will once again refuse to let the Israelites go (v14b).  This then led to the third sign that Yahweh called Moses to use.[7] So ensues the Ten Plagues; but, the miracles had already started with the transformation of the rod into a snake. As Yahweh had said (7:14), Pharaoh’s heart was hardened (v22).

Exodus 8 relates more instances of the hardening terminology. The second plague, of frogs, assaults the Egyptians. Pharaoh did, for a moment, relent and asked Moses to call upon Yahweh to remove the frogs. He did so and they stopped. Yet, when Pharaoh saw this, he hardened his heart and didn’t listen to Moses and Aaron (v15).

Then there was the plague of the gnats, to which the king’s magicians had no answer. They told the king that this act was the “finger of God”. Yet again, Pharaoh did not listen for his heart was hardened (8:16-19).

After this was the plague of the flies. Pharaoh, as before, relented, called for help from Moses, and when relief came, he hardened his own heart yet again (8:20-32).

In Exodus 9:1-7, the livestock are the next to experience a plague, so that we read in v9 that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened after he saw its destruction, so that he wouldn’t let the people go.

In 9:8-12, boils strike the Egyptians, but Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he didn’t listen to Moses.

In 9:13-17 we have a direct statement to Pharaoh of the programmatic nature of Yahweh’s actions.

13 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Rise up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, “Let My people go, that they may serve Me. 14 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 no one like Me in all the earth. 15 For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. 16 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. 17 Still you exalt yourself against My people by not letting them go.”

These verses are remarkable, for they state unequivocally that God had delayed the Egyptians’ utter destruction, and was stretching it out, solely to the end of revealing his power to Pharaoh and to manifest his name to the world. In other words, Yahweh was making a point at Pharaoh’s expense! Is that not why, even when Pharaoh was sometimes backing off, Yahweh nonetheless proceeds to harden him? See at the end of 9:13-17 that Yahweh declares a different form of hardening, not using the hardening terminology: Pharaoh exalts himself against the Israelites. He was meant to humble himself under them. 

After this is the plague of hail that destroyed all the fields. Once more, Pharaoh relents, but this time he confesses his sin against Yahweh (9:27). He asks for Moses’ help again, and once more, upon receiving it via God lifting the plague, he hardens his heart (v34). Consequently, his heart was hardened (v35) and he didn’t let Israel go according to Moses’ words.

There is an interesting side window in Exodus 9:20, “The one among the servants of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord made his servants and his livestock flee into the houses”. This reveals that the opposite of hardening is the fear of God, of Yahweh, implying that hardening is to have no fear of God. More pointedly, it refers to fearing “the word of the Lord”. Indeed, throughout the hardening events, to harden one’s heart is to reject Yahweh’s message and messenger (see ahead).

Once again, in 10:1-2, there is another live-time programmatic announcement by Yahweh to Pharaoh:

1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them, 2 and that you may tell in the hearing of your son, and of your grandson, how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I performed My signs among them, that you may know that I am the Lord.”

This time God hardens the heart, it is said. Notice the antagonistic purpose: to mock the Egyptians and to manifest that he is the Lord.

The plague of locusts attacks Egypt consuming all plants and fruit, and darkening the land. By now there is the familiar pattern of Pharaoh calling for Moses, confessing his sin, and then hardening after God relented (10:12-20).

The last plague is the death of the firstborn male of every Egyptian household and of the cattle (Exo.11-13). Yahweh explains to Moses this time the programmatic nature of his actions:

9 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh will not listen to you, so that My wonders will be multiplied in the land of Egypt.” 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go out of his land. (11:9-10).

Prior to this actually taking place, Egypt is humbled before Israel and Moses, and gives parting goods of silver and gold to the Israelites (11:1-3). Note how this event is described as “the LORD gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians” (v3), and takes us back to the comment that the opposite of hardening was to humble oneself before the Israelites. It is the exact opposite of the hatred that characterizes hardness, a hardness brought on by Yahweh.

Yahweh refers to executing judgments by killing the many firstborn of Egypt (12:12). After Yahweh kills the firstborn, Moses recalls it, “It came about, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast” (13:15). We read multiple times in Exodus 13 of God’s “powerful hand” delivering the Israelites from Egypt (vv3, 9, 14, 16), confirming the programmatic nature of Yahweh’s will.

Pharaoh decides to let the Israelites go after the barrage of divine judgments. God led them out of Egypt by way of the Red Sea. Exodus 14 recounts Pharaoh’s demise in the Sea. We are told in verses 4, 8, 17 that Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart to pursue the Israelites. Yahweh knew what Pharaoh would say to himself, thinking that Israel was now trapped and ripe for destruction (14:3-4). This deliverance is called the “salvation” of Yahweh (14:13). Chapter 14 ends with a note on the fear of Yahweh:

30 Thus the Lord saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. 31 When Israel saw the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in His servant Moses.

Specifically, in 14:4, 8, 17, it is said that Yahweh hardens Pharaoh’s heart. To be precise, v4 states he “will” do so, and then in v8 it states he did so. V17 states that God “will”, again, harden Pharaoh’s heart; there is no corresponding use of a hardening verb to show that this did happen. Instead of even a comment detailing Pharaoh’s mindset concerning Yahweh or Israel, the text informs us merely that the Egyptians went hunting for the Israelites but could not catch them, and having pursued them into the dry bed of the Red Sea, God brought the Sea’s walls crashing down on the heads of the Egyptians. This is to say that, hardness is described as hostility toward Yahweh and his people.

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

There are a few initial observations we can make concerning the context of the hardening events.

• There are many programmatic statements describing God’s plan to deliberately draw out Pharaoh’s destruction, and to exalt the name of Yahweh.
• These statements are expressing Yahweh’s commitment to his covenant promise to the fathers and to his covenant bond with Israel, that he might deliver them from Egypt to worship him in another place.
• Although the hardening events are built around three Hebrew verbs (see ahead), the Exodus’ narrative is often descriptive of hardening and does not always use the three verbs.
• Hardening does not seem to be unbelief, but is the more technical concept of a form of hostility toward Yahweh and Israel, a desire to dismiss and destroy both. There is no fear of Yahweh, no humility before him, nor before his prophets and people. In particular, there is no submission to Yahweh’s command.
• There is one point in which both Egypt and Pharaoh are humiliated so that the Egyptians bring gold and silver to the Israelites. This was God’s favor working in the situation, the exact opposite of hardening.
• There are many hardening events, not one.
• These events are tied in a broad sense to signs and wonders, for hardening happens either after a wonder or before it.

Now we are going to look more closely at the three Hebrew hardening verbs and their order and usage.

THE ORDER AND USAGE OF THE THREE HEBREW VERBS

There are three main terms that are used: chazaq, kabad, and, qashah. Chazaq is usually associated with hardness, or being strong. Kabad carries the idea of weightiness, heaviness. Whilst qashah conveys difficulty, hardness. Of course, each word receives its meaning in context, but one can see how each term readily, in the Exodus narrative, lends itself to the concept of hardening. Three Hebrew verb stems are employed for the three hardening verbs: qal, hiphil, and piel. The qal stem indicates a state of being with no causation (‘his heart was hardened’); hiphil is used of causation (Yahweh hardened; Pharaoh hardened); and piel, too, refers to causation, but also has the nuance of iteration or repetition. Thus, when the piel is used of God hardening Pharaoh, for example, the implication might be that this act will repeat itself. There is no niphal or passive form of the three verbs in context. Let’s look at each verb in turn.

Chazaq

• “The Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” ” (4:21);
• “Yet Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said” (7:13);
• “But the magicians of Egypt did the same with their secret arts; and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said” (7:22);
• “Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said” (8:19);
• “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted to Moses” (9:12);
• “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses” (9:35)
• “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to let them go” (10:20);
• “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to release them” (10:27);
• “Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go out of his land” (11:10);
• ” “Thus I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” And they did so” (14:4);
• “The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he chased after the sons of Israel as the sons of Israel were going out boldly” (14:8);
• “As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen.” ” (14:17).

Kabad

• “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the Lord had said” (8:15);
• “But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go” (8:32);
• “Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not even one of the livestock of Israel dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go” (9:7);
• “But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants” (9:34);
• “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them” ” (10:1).

Qashah

• “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.” (7:3);
• “It came about, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore, I sacrifice to the Lord the males, the first offspring of every womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.’” (13:15).

Type and order

The type of the three verbs and their order are as follows.

 -God will harden (chazaq; active; piel; future) before signs and exodus; a programmatic statement (4:21);

-God will harden (qashah; active; hiphil; future) before signs and exodus; a programmatic statement (7:3);

-was hardened (chazaq; state; qal) in response to Aaron’s staff (7:13);**

-was hardened (chazaq; state; qal) in response to his magician’s secret art in regard to the first of the ten signs (7:22)

-Pharaoh hardened (kabad; active; hiphil) after the frogs disappeared (8:15);

-was hardened (chazaq; state; qal) in response to his magicians’ comment upon the finger of God in the third plague of insects (8:19);

-Pharaoh hardened (kabad; active; piel) after flies disappear (8:32);

-was hardened (kabad; state; qal) after death of cattle (9:7);

-Lord hardened (chazaq; active; piel) in response to the boils on all Egyptians including the magicians (9:12);

-Pharaoh hardened (kabad; active; hiphil) in response to the ceasing of the hail and rain (9:34); 

-was hardened (chazaq; passive; qal) in reaction to the ceasing of the hail and rain (9:35);

-Lord hardened (kabad; active; hiphil) after the ceasing of the hail and rain; a programmatic statement (10:1);

-Lord hardened (chazaq; active; piel) after all the locusts had gone (10:20);

-Lord hardened (chazaq; active; piel) after the darkness and after Moses had appealed to Pharaoh for livestock (10:27); 

-Lord hardened (chazaq; active; piel); a programmatic statement (11:10);

-was stubborn (qashah; state; qal) about letting Israel go; God then killed the firstborn of Egypt (13:15);

-Lord will harden (chazaq; active; piel; future) for Pharaoh will pursue Israel after he sees them ‘wandering aimlessly’ in wilderness (14:4);

-Lord hardened (chazaq; active; piel) with chariots to chase after the Israelites (14:8);

-Lord will harden (chazaq; active; piel; future) for Pharaoh will pursue Israel into the sea (14:17).

**We should note, too, at this point the adjectival form of kabad in 7:14: Pharaoh had a hard heart.

Verbs in unison

The three verbs sometimes work together within the hardening events. A clear example is in 9:34-35 where kabad and chazaq operate in unison: “34 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened [kabad] his heart, he and his servants. 35 Pharaoh’s heart was hardened [chazaq], and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses.” Another example is in Exodus 7. We read that God will harden (qashah) Pharaoh’s heart (v3), only to find in v13 that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened (chazaq) “as the LORD had said”. There is a similar interplay between chazaq and kabad in Exodus 8, 9, and 10. Moreover, the free switch between the hiphil and piel also adds to the idea that although the verbs might have slightly different roles to play contextually, they are sometimes used interchangeably.

Opportunism

There is one final aspect to consider, and it is telling. When Pharaoh actively hardens his own heart- not the mere state of hardening- it is the verb kabad that is used. The dominant verb used to refer to Yahweh’s act of hardening is chazaq, although kabad is used once (10:1), as is qashah (7:3). In the use of kabad, Pharaoh is said to harden his heart when there is a period of respite for the Egyptians (8:15; 9:7, 34).  Qashah and kabad are not used of God’s action to indicate a response to a respite; but chazaq is in 10:20. This confirms that even in Pharoah’s opportunism, God’s work is woven into Pharaoh’s own act of hardening. Therein lies a form of demarcation, for in regard to the text saying Pharaoh actively hardened his own heart, it is invariably expressed in terms of responding to some opportune moment. 

SEQUENCE OF HARDENING

In the following section, we’re taking a deeper dive into what is going on in regard to the hardening terms specifically, tracing out their sequence as they are used.

Exodus 7

We read in 4:21 and 7:3 about Yahweh’s determined plan to harden Pharaoh. This is executed, according to 7:13, resulting in Pharaoh’s hardened heart, “as the LORD had said”. 7:14a relates that Pharaoh’s heart continued in its hardened state, and upon this Yahweh said Pharaoh will once again not let the Israelites go (7:14b). This is fulfilled in 7:22 for “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” just “as the LORD had said”. It seems, then, that there is a kind of sequence in these verses: Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart; it was hardened; this hardened state entailed that he would again be hardened by Yahweh; and he was, resulting in yet another hardened condition. One act of hardening by Yahweh is inevitably leading to another, just as the initial hardened state is pointing to yet more hardening to come.

Exodus 8

In relation to the plague of frogs and God eventually removing it, Pharaoh actively hardens his heart (v15). There is no accompanying resultant state mentioned on this occasion, for it is most likely implied (see ahead). 

When the next plague of gnats ensues, Pharaoh refuses to acknowledge what his own magicians see, namely, that this curse was due to the “finger of God”. In commentary, we are informed that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened (v19). A discussion in academia ensues as to whether this resultant state in v19 arose, by implication, due to the plague of the frogs, or whether this state in v19 was the result of a brand-new act of active hardening on Pharaoh’s part in reaction to the gnats. I think, as with Exodus 7, it is most likely both. It is evident from Exodus 8:16-18 that Pharaoh is engaging in a hardening action, even though the phrase is not used. Even so, as with Exodus 7, we are most likely to understand an inevitability factor, that one act of hardening leads to another, and one state of hardening forecasts another.

If so, then in v32, where it says that Pharaoh hardened his heart in regard to the curse of the swarm of flies, a passive state is implied. Moreover, as before, both the active act and the passive state are most likely inevitable in the light of previous actions and states.

Yet, what can easily be missed is that Pharaoh’s active act of hardening his own heart is according to Yahweh’s prediction, “as the LORD had said” (v19), as is the passive resultant state (v15). These verses relate back to the programmatic statements of Yahweh’s active act recorded in 4:21 and 7:3 and also their fulfillment in the “as the LORD said” verses (7:13, 22). In other words, Pharaoh’s own act of hardening and the resultant state of hardening are assumed to be the result of God’s program in action, and, more pointedly, they are inextricably bound to Yahweh’s act of hardening Pharaoh’s heart. One act implies the other and the resultant state. Moreover, due to the fact that the programmatic statements are issuing from Yahweh and describe his action only, the reader is meant to understand that Pharaoh’s act of hardening is in some manner the result of Yahweh’s controlling act of hardening. Given this interrelationship, it is inevitable, as Beale concludes, that Pharaoh is considered as Yahweh’s agent in the hardening events.[8]

Exodus 9

V7 relates the passive hardened state of Pharaoh’s heart, this time after God had cursed Egypt’s cattle (vv1-7). Once again, most likely this passive state implies both Pharaoh’s and Yahweh’s activity specifically in regard to the curse of the cattle; yet, this resultant state is most likely to be seen as the inevitable outcome of previous hardenings. 

In 9:12, Yahweh is the source of hardening in regard to the plague of boils, “just as the LORD had spoken to Moses”. No resultant passive state is recorded, nor Pharaoh’s action. Yet, both are implied.

In v34, Pharaoh hardens his heart after God once again relented and removed the curse of hail. V35 follows through on this by, this time, referring to the resultant state of hardness. This confirms what we’ve seen all along- the resultant state implies a previous and new act of hardening.

Exodus 10

Contra Beale, Exodus 10:1 is most likely a bridging verse that not only gives a programmatic statement concerning Yahweh’s future acts of hardening, as it also ties us into the preceding context of Exodus 7-9, especially 9:34-35.[9] Yahweh had already hardened Pharaoh’s heart (10:1). Given that the hardening events always presume new action on either Yahweh’s or Pharaoh’s part, one has to assume that 10:1’s reference to “have hardened” implies a new action. As that verse does not record a new action, this suggests that it is the previous verses in 9:34-35 that record (imply) Yahweh’s new act, which runs parallel to Pharaoh’s new act. Moreover, 10:1 indicates that this previous, new, act by Yahweh implied in 9:34-35 is seen as inevitably leading to future acts of hardening, according to Yahweh’s program.

This, yet again, confirms the interrelationship of Yahweh’s act and Pharaoh’s, so that where one is mentioned, the other is implied, as is the resultant passive state. See, again, how in this programmatic statement it is Yahweh’s action that is the control, and it is assumed that Pharaoh’s act in some manner is flowing out of God’s plan and action. 

Exodus 10:20 and 27 refer to distinct acts of Yahweh hardening Pharaoh’s heart, once more confirming that there is not one constant state of hardness but many events of hardening.

Yet, Pharoah’s active doing is not mentioned in regard to hardening; but we should not allow this to distract us from the principle already established that where Yahweh is the actor, Pharoah is implied, and vice versa.

Exodus 14

Godonce more hardens Pharaoh’s heart (v14), which is accompanied by the inevitable passive condition (v8). Then there is another act of hardening by Yahweh (v17), but no statement of the passive result. Nor is Pharaoh’s own act mentioned. Yet, as before, it is plain that Pharaoh is hardening his own heart in context.

Conclusions

There are a number of conclusions derived from the above sequence.

• All of the hardening events, whether the acts of God or Pharaoh, and including the passive states, flow out of God’s program or plan;

• each instance of active hardening, whether by Pharaoh or by Yahweh, presumes the hardening activity of the actor not mentioned;
• each instance of active hardening, whether by Pharaoh or Yahweh, assumes the resultant passive state;
• each instance of the resultant passive state assumes both Yahweh’s and Pharaoh’s preceding action;
• Yahweh’s action is the control, and it issues from his plan;
• Pharaoh’s action is the outcome of Yahweh’s plan and activity;
• there are many instances of hardening, not one;
• there is an inevitability factor built into the narratives, in which one state of hardening leads to another.

THE THREE PERSPECTIVES

We are now entering into the discussion phase of the paper, starting with whether there are two or three perspectives in regard to the hardening terms.

Two or three?

Many see only two perspectives associated with the verbs: Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. With that dual form of hardening in mind, some Arminians maintain that Pharaoh first hardened his own heart, leading to the passive state of hardening (7:22; 8:8, 28; 9:7, 35; 13:15), and that it is only after the sixth plague that Yahweh actively intervened to harden Pharaoh’s heart (9:12).[10]

The Arminian rendition is to be commended for striving to acknowledge who acts and when. Even so, it does not properly appreciate that the state of hardening, as expressed exclusively by the qal stem, conveys its own category. Nor does Arminianism always accurately relate who is behind any given state of hardening. For example, 7:13 does not state who hardened Pharaoh’s heart but merely says it was hardened. Yet, it is evident that there is an antecedent cause, because the active hardening verbs are found in 4:21 and 7:3, in which God programmatically relates he will harden Pharaoh’s heart. These verses naturally relate to what follows in 7:13, for that verse concludes, “as the LORD has said”, returning us to 4:21 and 7:3-4. The same formula is applicable to the hardening state of 7:22. However, in the case of 8:19 the hardened state of Pharaoh’s heart is tied to him hardening his own heart, according to 8:15. Matters are still more complicated, for the “LORD has said” verses of 8:15 and 19 imply that Yahweh is also the source of this passive condition of hardening. 

Perspectives in unison

The Arminian reading responds that it takes very seriously the three verbs and their order. Beale, by contrast, is reading in his Calvinistic perspective, says Arminianism. For, where God is said to harden, there is never a reference to Pharaoh at the same time hardening his heart; conversely, when Pharaoh hardens his heart, it is not stated that Yahweh simultaneously hardened Pharaoh’s heart.[11]

This is a reasonable counter-response that recognizes the absences of verb placement within the text. That being said, in distinction to what Carson argues, too, there is evidence that each one of these three perspectives (God’s act, Pharaoh’s act, resultant state) is present when only one perspective is explicitly stated (see above). For one thing, there are other terms, phrases, and events, outside of the three verbs, in the Exodus narrative that are serving to describe the hardening process. Moreover, both active forms (God and Pharaoh) have common results: Pharaoh does not listen, fear God, or let the Israelites go. Just as important, Pharaoh’s actions and attitude in regard to Yahweh hardening him are identical to Pharaoh’s attitude and actions when he hardens his own heart.

Indeed, if we are to push for a distinction between Pharaoh’s act and Yahweh’s it is possibly found in Pharaoh’s practice of hardening his heart during some opportune moment or other. Yahweh’s act is, possibly, broader than this, incorporating the many contextual elements stated in the Exodus narrative, orchestrating them (see ahead). Whereas, it is possible that Pharaoh’s hardening action is more specifically tied to God ending a judgment, or relenting from it, or some form of opportunism. Put more simply: Yahweh’s act is proactive; Pharaoh’s reactive.

We should not make too much, therefore, of the fact that sometimes God’s act is not mentioned and at others Pharaoh’s act is not cited. Even so, we concede to Arminianism that there is a reason why Yahweh’s act is mentioned but not Pharaoh’s, and vice versa. In rendering an explanation of this condition, we will now take a closer look at the programmatic nature of certain verses.

Programmatic 

Exodus 4:21 and 7:3-4 have a programmatic nature describing Yahweh’s plan and his activity in all the hardening events. The overall plan of God is that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart via numerous signs. It is the big picture Yahweh has in mind, the overall plan. Nothing is mentioned in these verses about Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Similar programmatic statements are attached to the verbs in 10:1 and 11:10. Outside of the three verbs, there are other programmatic statements in the narrative (3:19-20; 9:13-17).

As these things focus on Yahweh’s action and plan, they imply that Pharaoh’s own action of hardening his heart is not considered the primary model for the hardening verses (although, as stated before, Pharaoh’s activity is stated sometimes and implied at all times). The bold message being sent is that, from the beginning of the first sign all the way to the exodus itself, God is the one controlling the hardening process in both its active forms, as Beale concludes.[12] That is why in 10:1 and 11:10 there is repeated mentions of Yahweh’s program. It is for the same reason that in Exodus 14 the text does not explicitly refer to Pharaoh’s action of hardening his own heart- even though it is implied. For the narrative of Exodus 14 is bringing us to the grand climax, anticipated in the fundamental passages of 4:21 and 7:3-4, that Yahweh-the-conductor alone is controlling and orchestrating all the hardening events. Pharaoh and his gods are not responsible for controlling events, and Yahweh is conducting his symphony to its prophesied finale. Israel should take note, therefore. 

What, then, about those hardening verses that mention only Pharaoh’s activity, not Yahweh’s? If we bear in mind the previous point, the reason why Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart without a reference to God’s accompanying action is to demonstrate that Pharaoh is responsible for his own action and he is in rebellion against Yahweh. This is, after all, what God predicted and prophesied. Pharaoh will set himself against God. But God, as the great conductor, controls all things and he alone will have the final say, even in regard to Pharaoh hardening his own heart.

If we do not conclude that the three perspectives are present each time, we incur a major issue. For, it must be explained why it is that, for example, Yahweh alone is said to harden and this results in Pharaoh behaving exactly the same as he does when he hardens his own heart. The same issue arises when it is said Pharaoh alone hardens his heart: it does not take seriously that Yahweh’s active act of hardening reflects precisely and exactly the same results and behaviors. 

Moreover, the fact that programmatic statements concern Yahweh’s action, not Pharaoh’s, yet are nonetheless followed by Pharaoh’s activity, confirms that we are to see both actions (God’s and Pharaoh’s) holistically, not separately, as perspectives in unison, not as divided by time and occasion.

Independent yet united

Although the three perspectives are in unison, their separate identities must be retained. The resultant state of hardness is not God’s act of hardening, nor Pharaoh’s; it is the effect of one or the other person hardening the heart. Similarly, when it is said that Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart this was not tantamount to erasing Pharaoh’s own independent act of hardening working in immediate unison. So, it follows that, when it is commented that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, this does not preclude God’s separate and distinct act of hardening working in immediate unison. To remind the reader: all three perspectives work in immediate unison, and where one is present the other two are implied.

Nature of narrative

This arrangement suits a narrative format, for it is not setting itself up as a form of organized theology. We need to read in-between the lines, somewhat, with narrative. There is, patently, some reason for mentioning one source of hardening and not the other, but when the ‘dots are joined together’, so to speak, then it is evident that the narrative is implying that both Pharaoh and Yahweh are acting in immediate unison when hardening.

FEATURES OF THE HARDENING EVENTS

Moving on from the limited confines of the study of the three Hebrew terms, the sequence of the verbs, and the three perspectives, we will now look at certain broader features of the hardening events in Exodus.

Its nature

The nature of Pharaoh’s hardened heart is that it stubbornly resists God’s will and plan for his people Israel (see ahead). He fights against God’s will, resisting it, even in the light of the ten wonders. It is not unbelief as such, but is a radical, even destructive, reaction against God’s revealed will through his servants Moses and Aaron. It is a form of calculated rebellion and spiritual warfare against Yahweh, the evil desire to destroy Israel and to dethrone the God of Israel.

What hardening is directed at

It is vital to the discussion that we see that the emphasis is laid upon what Pharaoh is fighting against. It is not merely the signs in and of themselves he is fighting against- although, as already noted, they are most definitely wrapped up in some way with his active response of hardening. Specifically, Pharaoh is rebelling against God’s will that God has commanded Pharaoh to let the Israelites go (4:21; 8:32; 9:7, 35; 10:20, 27; 11:10). Complementing this is Pharaoh’s lack of listening, for he did not listen to God’s command given through Moses and Levi (7:3-4, 13, 22; 8:15, 19; 9:12). In other words, hardening is more specifically the ‘face’ of rebellion against the will of God, discarding his word, and not listening to that will conveyed by his prophets, and as embodied in his servants, Israel.

Timing

The hardening events take place between the periods of the signs and wonders displayed to Pharaoh and the exodus event. Both 4:21 and 7:3-4 refer to the hardening as taking place in the future, “I will harden”. It was not an action in eternity, we can safely conclude. Nor, apparently, had the hardening taken place yet. In other words, Pharaoh’s hardened heart was not permanently hardened prior to the events, but this hardening was exclusively tied up with the signs and the exodus from Egypt. Nor, as stated previously, was his heart hardened in regard to the first sign so as to remain in that hardened condition, for the narratives reveal that the hardening was renewed in response to each sign and God’s actions, and also in response to the exodus itself. Hardening is not, therefore, the normal condition of the ‘unbeliever’, in context. If that were the case, it should be said of the Israelites that they were permanently hardened, for the majority of them were unbelievers. 

The purpose of the hardening events can be stated against a general background and then more particularly.

General Purpose

The general background of the hardening acts in Exodus is the wider purpose of Yahweh’s plan for Israel in regard to fulfilling his covenant promise to the fathers that God’s ‘son’ Israel would enter into the Promised Land (2:24; 3:6, 13, 15, 16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 13:5, 11). God is not hardening Pharaoh ‘just because’, in other words. Yahweh was determined to set free his people to take them into the land by redeeming them and bringing many judgments down on Pharaoh’s head (6:6; 7:4; 12:12). 

Immediate purposes

There are multiple immediate purposes as to the hardening events:

• Yahweh shows his signs and wonders (7:3; 10:1-2);
• Yahweh makes a mockery of the Egyptians (10:2);
• Yahweh honors himself (14:4, 17); 
• Pharaoh and the Egyptians know that Yahweh is Lord (10:2; 14:4);
• Pharaoh pursues the Israelites (14:4, 8, 17).

We conclude from these specific purposes that Yahweh is hardening Egypt to rebel against his will, so that he might mock Pharaoh as a son of destruction, yet bring honor to his own name as Lord. 

Decretive

The Arminian reading takes issue with the divine decree model of Calvinism (see ahead), and points to Exodus 3:19-20 that seems to imply that Pharaoh hardened his heart first and then God reacted with the signs in an action issuing from foreknowledge, “19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. 20 So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go.” Carson, as we saw, negated the role of a divine decree contextually, rejecting the model that said God hardened, then the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and after this Pharaoh hardened his own heart. No such cause-and-effect is at work, and therefore there is an absence of a decretive feature, thinks Carson.

Beale is reliant to a limited extent on the model of a decree. Yet, contrary to Marcy’s assessment, Beale is, in the two instances that he does refer to a ‘decree’, equating the decree with the will of God in action, his active plan, and not the theological model of an eternal decree as such:

“Moses seems finally to discern the reality of the hardening decree of Yahweh in 4:21 and 7:3, which has now become for him the practical basis of his expectations about Pharaoh’s future negative responses, as Yahweh reaffirms to him 10:1-3.”[13]

“Paul’s apparent expression of this antinomy is found in the hypothetical Jewish objection which he anticipates in his allusion to Pharaoh’s hardening, i.e., how can God blame a man for sin, since man cannot resist God’s decree (boulh) which includes sin (cf. Rom 9:19).”[14]

Certainly, Carson was correct to draw our attention to the fluidity of the narrative: it moves freely, at will as it were, not pinning down the hardening events to an explicit chain reaction involving the verbs.

Yet, as said before, narrative does not function as a form of Systematic Theology. In stepping away from the verbs arrangement to their purpose and to their context, we can readily see that a form of a decree in action is surely indisputable. We are not told, as said before, of an ‘eternal decree’ (yet nor was such a thing rejected by the context). But God’s will is relentlessly at work based on his plan and its purpose. Thus, the various hardening events took place according to Yahweh’s word and plan, just as he predicted and ‘prophesied’ (see 4:21, etc); and as the context bears testimony to, all of this plan was executed down to the letter. This arrangement is so involved that the divine plan had already built into it Pharaoh’s constant refusals and hardenings. As a result, we can confidently conclude that God effectively decreed these things via his ‘prophecies’.[15]  They were not potentially going to come to pass, nor was God’s plan ultimately dependent on Pharaoh’s cooperation, for his actions were certain and were already written into the plan.

The purposes, plan, and prophecies, of Yahweh, and the manner in which the Exodus narrative unfolds, do not allow for the idea of mere divine foreknowledge of events that Yahweh reacts to. Yahweh’s plan is precisely stated in advance and then step-by-step executed, leaving no hint of the divine will being based upon mere foreknowledge, or as if Yahweh is merely reacting to situations as they come to pass. Nor are his prophecies mere bluster or potentials. He planned out his will and then set that will in motion, and it came to pass exactly as he planned.

This decretive/planned model is built into the Exodus narrative, and, indeed, into the Pentateuch’s narrative, and into the entirety of the OT narrative, I would argue. For God’s ways not only accommodate the presence of evil in all its forms, so that he deliberately allows it to take its course, but he also steers events so that evil is repeated over and over; and yet all of this is measured and deliberate on his part, according to his greater will and plan (e.g., Job 1-2; see ahead). 

Divine causation

Of course, Carson was anxious to avoid a kind of cause-and-effect process tied up with a decree. We saw, however, that there was a form of a decree in action. Did this decree, then, operate as a bare series of orders that caused all things that happened to come to pass? The simple answer is no, for the narrative is not attributing a form of causation to the plan in itself, or to this decree of God, but only that all things will come to pass as predicted. In other words, the plan or decree happens because God brings it to pass. There is not some abstracted decree or plan that acts as God, in context. God acts to bring to pass his prophesied plan.  

Human causation

Does this mean that Pharaoh was not a direct actor in the hardening process? This brings us to Beale’s point of view. He writes:

“The specific lexical idea of the verb [‘abazzeq in 4:21c] is that Yahweh will give Pharaoh the psychological power which would cause the accomplishment of a refusing action. Thus, at least from 4:21 it should be concluded that just as Yahweh gave Moses power to perform a theocratic function (v 2la), so he gave Pharaoh power for the accomplishment of a non-theocratic function, although both are to be seen as contributing to a Heilsplan goal.”[16]

Beale’s statement goes too far, in my opinion, for he conflates a word’s theological import in context with its lexical meaning and range. Chazaq does not convey in itself (lexically) the theology that Beale advocates. 

That being said, chazaq in 4:21 might be used contextually in the theological manner Beale proposes. Marcy does not think so, however, and criticizes Beale for imposing his Calvinistic deterministic view upon the text, of inserting a cause-and-effect paradigm, and for denying free will to Pharaoh within the hardening events.[17]

I have already argued that the hardening events are decreed by Yahweh, and that there is most certainly a form of cause-and-effect. In this the broader sense of these factors, I am therefore in agreement with Beale. To be pointed, Beale’s form of cause-and-effect is not expressed in God directly causing Pharaoh to do what he did. Rather, Beale’s cause-and-effect model is one expressed in the endowment of power. According to Beale, Yahweh’s power is given to Pharaoh after the same fashion as it is given to Moses: it is within, and upon, Pharaoh, ’empowering’ him to act. To Beale, God empowers Pharaoh unto hardening (and this is tantamount to God’s act of hardening), but he does not inject the hardening into him, or program him, as it were, to that end. Pharaoh inevitably, given the intensity of this hardening power, hardens his own heart, thinks Beale. Yet, contextually, I do not see this as accurate, either, for 4:21 does not refer to Pharaoh hardening his own heart (even though I acknowledge it is implied), but to Yahweh hardening Pharaoh’s heart. Beale’s view is blurring the difference between Yahweh’s act of hardening and Pharaoh’s action of hardening. I do not deny, as said before, that both forms of action (divine and human) work in coordination, in conjunction; but they are not the same act, nor is the one the power for the other. They are united, yet independent acts, in other words.

Indeed, to attribute to Pharaoh an investment of hardening power based on Moses’ example misses the stark contrast in Exodus between Yahweh’s dealings with Moses and his attitude to Pharaoh. There is nothing in the Exodus narrative to suggest that Yahweh is giving to Pharaoh the power to harden his own heart. In fact, in Exodus, Pharaoh is set apart as the arch-villain who incessantly, repeatedly, and with great obdurance, resists God’s power. I am not suggesting that God’s power is not at work upon Pharaoh in some fashion, merely that God has not given him some kind of power-endowment that enables him to harden his own heart.

As to Pharoah’s will per se, Beale is everywhere insistent that Pharaoh has the power to turn his own will against God; he never attributes Pharaoh’s act of turning his own will to God himself. As stated before, Beale’s argument is that God gives a kind of endowment of power to Pharaoh to harden his own heart. Yahweh in that way ‘influences’ Pharaoh, but he does not remove Pharaoh’s volition:

“It is the volition with which ‘ahazzeq ‘et-libbo is specifically concerned as 10:27 clarifies (‘aba lesalham); YHWH was to influence Pharaoh’s intellect and emotions that his volition was to decide to choose a “refusing” course of action (v 21b), which he would then perform (v 21c).”[18]

“The specific idea of kabed here probably shows that Pharaoh’s volition had been given such intense power for refusal, that it became “too heavy,” so that other influences would not be able to move or change its direction- even signs.”[19]

As just argued, contra Beale, Exodus does not convey that Yahweh empowers Pharaoh to reject his will. I will go one step further: Exodus does not give us any explanation of how Yahweh’s act and Pharaoh’s interact. This is why later in the paper I go outside of the Exodus narrative to explore this issue for a potential resolution.

No innate power

Although most of the hardening acts are connected to the signs and wonders, we should not conclude that only signs and wonders led to hardening. For prior to the opening up of the Red Sea, God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart (14:4, 8). Hardening might involve signs, but miracles are not necessarily the medium of hardening. Certainly, even if it is argued that they are so sometimes, they are not innately so. They do not possess a sacramental form of power that in their unfolding they create hardening in Pharaoh’s heart. This is the same principle as before concerning any form of a decree: it does not have some magic, innate, power built into it to do things by itself. If the signs and wonders were ‘powerful’ and ‘efficacious’ toward hardening, it would be because Yahweh was actively working through them. 

Order

Even though the text in using the three Hebrew verbs distinguishes between God’s active work and Pharaoh’s, separating textually these actions, this was done for effect. When looking at the wider context, the three perspectives of God’s action, Pharaoh’s, and the resultant state, were always operating in unison at any time, precluding the Arminian conclusion. Carson’s argument that there was no discernible pattern was, as we saw, true only as pertaining to the use of the verbs themselves, but, as with Arminianism, it did not reflect the teaching of the overall context of Exodus. God’s programmatic and prophetic declarations emphasized Yahweh’s controlling action, and Pharaoh’s act, in those instances, is not even mentioned. Indeed, it is implied that when Pharaoh acted, it was as “God had said” when he declared Yahweh would harden Pharaoh’s heart. God is the conductor driving all affairs, events, and actions. This was his modus operandi that brought hardness in Pharaoh’s heart. It was set in contrast, contextually, to Pharaoh’s reactive actions. Even the use of the Hebrew verbs bore this out. Pharaoh is not initiating; God is. Pharaoh is responding to Yahweh’s conducting actions in each and every hardening event.

Missing answer

Having come so far, and said so much, in regard to the hardening events, it is, to be sure, somewhat of an anticlimax that the context does not describe precisely how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, nor how Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I can imagine Beale complaining, with some justification, that I use the language and terminology of God’s hands-on, direct activity, but do not follow through on this by concluding that God’s power as a kind is overwhelming Pharaoh to act. I have to confess that I do not know if I will ever have the answer, but I do propose a number of solutions in the following section.

DISCUSSION

We will now discuss how God might have hardened Pharaoh’s heart. We must recall that the Exodus narrative itself does not inform us of the way. So, what is given below are proposals taken from outside of Exodus and then compared to the Exodus text.

Empowerment

To remind the reader, Beale’s model essentially replicated the method of God investing Moses with power: God’s intense hardening power invested in Pharaoh inevitably led to him hardening his heart in an act of power. I responded that the narrative did not indicate a torrent of enabling empowerment. Also, Pharaoh’s actions were always in spite of God’s judgments and power. It is true, as we saw, that both Yahweh and Pharaoh are acting in unison, but Beale’s position, in my estimate, comes very close to blurring the lines, for it is not entirely clear how the endowment of hardening power is not a case of Yahweh acting directly through Pharaoh to perform in that way. Now, there is an argument for saying that Beale’s form of a fusion model might apply to Christians, but that is a different matter. For a model to lean this way in regard to Pharaoh is disquieting because of the presence of evil in his hardened heart. Having said these things, and to be fair to Beale, he is working very hard to avoid the impression that Pharaoh was not responsible for hardening his own heart in a separate act.

Beale notes that Proverbs 21:1 refers to the king’s heart in the hands of God, which he turns whatever way he wishes, as if he were turning channels of water. Certainly, this verse does refer to God’s direct work upon the heart of the king. As such, it might reflect the principle that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. It is certainly possible that this verse fits Beale’s rendition of empowerment and inexorable influence. However, even if Beale’s interpretation of Proverbs 21:1 is correct, the question remains as to whether it fits the model of hardening before us in Exodus. Moreover, it seems to me that the influence or work of Yahweh, according to the proverb, is relating to changing and controlling the direction of the king’s heart, and not necessarily investing it with power or influence. Is empowerment the same as Yahweh changing the direction of Pharaoh’s heart? Would it not be more akin to the context of Exodus if Yahweh’s ‘turning’ work of Pharaoh’s heart is seen as Yahweh directing all the affairs of Pharaoh’s heart, whether good or evil? In this, he brings all his heart’s affairs to pass- but not through empowerment, inexorable influence, or injection. In this turning model, Pharaoh’s actions fit into Yahweh’s prophesied plan and its manifestation and conclusion, too.

Passive hardening

R. C. Sproul popularized the Calvinistic point of view that God passively hardens sinners’ hearts. This view says that God removes his common grace and the result is that the sinner dives deeper into his sin, greatly intensifying his hostility against God. Romans 1:24ff. is cited as demonstrating that God gives sinners over to sin who refuse to acknowledge him.[20]

Sproul’s reading has in its favor that it absolves God from the accusation that he directly causes unbelief and evil in the heart of man. God is not the author or source of evil in the heart. Nor, specifically, does his hand directly inject evil into man’s heart (see Psa.5:4; 45:7; Jam.1:13). Sproul’s argument also coordinates God’s act with that of Pharaoh’s, so that they are bound to one another. Moreover, hardening is not the ‘natural’ state of the sinner, but is a divine judgment. In these things, Sproul is at the opposite end of the Calvinistic spectrum to Beale.

As much as Sproul’s reading is a close interpretation of Romans 1, it does not deal with that passage’s account of the active intervention of God, for the text does not say that God removed anything, merely that he gave certain ones over to sin. He is hands-on, in other words, and not merely stepping back or removing graces. 

More to the point, this passive model of God does not suit the Exodus narrative. The context of many of the hardening verses is that of respite: when God removed his judgement expressed in a sign, Pharaoh responded to God’s respite by hardening his heart. It is plain, therefore, that Pharaoh was reacting negatively against God’s hand relenting in judgment (a form of mercy). Rather than a model of removed mercy or grace, therefore, hardening happened after added mercy, according to some of the hardening verses. Similarly, when Jesus went around preaching and performing miracles, Israel responded to these mercies by rejecting them and expelling Jesus (Matt.11).

Demonic

Calvin maintains that God uses two main methods to harden: the removal of grace (see above), and sending Satan to harden wicked sinners.[21] The first view we have just responded to. The second position has much in its favor. Demons were most likely behind Pharaoh’s magicians’ art. In Scripture, God uses Satan to test Job (Job 1-2); he sent demons to torment (Jdg.9:23; 1 Sam.16:14); and sent a demon to entice and tempt Ahab to do evil (1 Kg.22:21). Paul writes that Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers (2 Cor.4:4). These were all acts of divine judgment on unrepentant sinners and met the standard that God does not directly cause evil. Moreover, they express the unity of both divine hardening and human hardening at one time, not split over time.

I see no reason to dispute the above theology as potentially behind Pharaoh’s actions, for it draws back the curtain on this physical world to reveal the spiritual warfare that marks the invisible realm. The demonic position also distances God from doing evil, and removes the accusation that he directly injected or caused it. It is the habit of God to use instruments (godly or ungodly), mediators, and the like, to bring about his plan and purposes.

However, the difficulty this interpretation faces is that of sufficiently recognizing that God himself hardened Pharaoh’s heart and Pharaoh himself hardened his own heart. It is one thing to say that demons were involved, or used, but the text is very vocal in its assertion of the divine and human agencies in hardening, giving the acutely distinct impression that both actors are hands-on at all times. Moreover, sometimes God uses demons, but at others he does not.

Immediate divine agency

Another position is that God is very intensely and directly involved in the hardening events. This is not Beale’s position but that of some hyper-Calvinists, who say that God directly caused the evil and hardening in Pharaoh’s heart. An example of this theology is said to exist in Isaiah 45:7, ” “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things”” (ASV). So, we may say that God created the evil of hardening in Pharaoh’s heart, this view argues.

As before, this position runs into the insuperable problem that it effectively removes any need for Pharaoh to harden his heart, since such hardening is 100% God’s action. Moreover, the above reading also runs into the moral accusation of making God the source of evil. Most translations have opted to interpret ra in Isaiah 45:7 as “calamity”. Words are to be translated in context, after all.  If it is insisted that ra usually means ‘evil’ in the OT, then it is perhaps the case that Isaiah is to be understood not as teaching that God created evil in a direct sense, but that he as the sovereign one brings to pass all affairs of Israel, ‘creating’ them, including its evil events, as the sovereign one in control of evil and righteousness. In that setting, Yahweh condemned Israel and brought evil down on its head, initiating its use; yet, he then raised up pagan king Cyrus to aid Israel (Isa.45:1-7). This is the model I mentioned before concerning Proverbs 21:1.

More to the point, as far as the Exodus narrative is concerned, it places Pharaoh alone into the category of evil, never Yahweh himself, and does not give the impression that Yahweh is actively and directly creating evil. As said before, Yahweh’s form of hardening issued from his righteous judgment, not out of a heart of sin or rebellion.

As to man’s action, we read in James 1:14-15, “14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.” Pharaoh was enticed by his own evil heart, not by any direct work of God to create evil or sin. A bad tree produces bad fruit.

The prophetic model

Beale will perhaps criticize me for having a position that is but another version of his own, in not so many words, for it is referring to God actively working to cause darkness to come out.

I do not deny obvious parallels, even elements of agreement, but the difference between the prophetic model and that of Beale is that the prophetic paradigm is not arguing that God’s act of hardening Pharaoh is a form of divine power placed on Pharaoh that he then capitulates to, that is, he then hardens himself. This is to say, the prophetic model does not claim, or give the impression, that God is almost directly causing the hardening committed by Pharaoh.

A second major difference is in conceptualizing God’s activity. Remember, the ’formula’, to speak somewhat pompously, is that God acts and Pharaoh reacts. In the prophetic model, Yahweh is orchestrating all matters, factors, words, events, and things, and using each and every conceivable moment surrounding the hardening events to execute his plan and will. There is a built-in inevitability factor that Pharaoh will rebel and act in a certain manner over and over. This is the revised interpretive model of Proverbs 21:1, essentially, that maintains that God controls in absolute terms all the factors going into Pharaoh’s life, even the degree to which evil manifests itself in Pharaoh. This prophetic model protects God from any accusation of direct interference, direct injection, or the like.

The prophetic model of divine action and human reaction draws upon other examples in Scripture. For example, Jesus’ preaching, teaching, and miracles, all combined together exposed sin in the Israelites, and what ensued was a cause-and-effect scenario. Jesus said, ” “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin” ” (Jh.15:22). In that verse, the sin was already there, present, but it was the divine will through Christ, the ‘agent’ and ‘prophet’, to unveil it. How so? By withdrawing? No. By a form of divine empowerment of some kind? No. Sin was revealed by the hand of mercy and divine power in miracles, but above all by the light of the Gospel. Now, darkness being by nature a spiritual force that hides away from spiritual and salvific light, immediately ‘congeals’, or comes together, automatically, as a reflex, by itself, to oppose the light. This is the divine angle at work. Then only does the darkness, now hardened, as it were, react and shift into uber-drive, going all out to attack the light and its prophets. The human angle. The divine acts and causes; the human reacts and pursues. John’s Gospel again reflects this theology, for the appearance of the Light that exposed darkness, ‘causing’ it to come alive, led to the Israelites themselves running from the Light in hardness, spurning the light (divine causation), and falling back deeper into the depths of darkness to immediately and openly hate Christ and his disciples, and, inevitably, to eventually murder Jesus and his disciples (human reaction) (Jh.3:19-21; 12:37-40).

A major counter-argument is that this prophetic model effectively attributes a latent state of hardening to Pharaoh and others, which is then exposed by God, and afterwards employed by these sinners. Certainly, if this is so, the text of Exodus does not mention any latent state of hardening, and my view comes undone. Even so, the above prophetic model is not arguing for a latent form of hardening, but a latent form of sin. Hardening is what distinguishes the unrepentant from the repentant. The light of Jesus’ preaching and miracles served, in other words, to reveal Israel’s unbelief, to expose it. In the case of those who go onto rebel, this prior divine action is considered itself part of the hardening event, which is inevitably expressed in the sinner himself running from the divine light and then going after God, hating him and his people. I think this distinction also, at least in some small measure, connects better with the fact that, even though there was unbelief in Israel in the Exodus narrative, it had not yet committed to a path of hardening, which is one of inevitability.

I will leave matters there as far as the direct content of Exodus is concerned and its potential solutions from outside of Exodus. That being said, the article is not finished yet, for it would not do to ignore Romans 9 when talking about Pharaoh’s heart being hardened. I say this not merely to do ‘due diligence’, but because as an NCTer I believe that the NT record gives us info that the OT does not always spell out.

ROMANS 9

In this section, I will allow the text of Romans 9 to speak for itself, not imposing on it the conclusions of the Exodus narrative. I will, specifically, look at both Arminianism’s then Calvinism’s rendition of the Pharaoh citation, and then follow through on this with an NCT perspective.

A response to Arminianism

From the outset, we can assert that to enlist Romans 9:14-18 to prove the Arminian reading is not going to work. ‘Free will’ is not, contextually, an option in regard to Paul’s view of Pharaoh. The entire premise of Romans 9 is founded upon God’s choice of one group comprised of individuals over another, based entirely on his choice and not on any human factor such as human will, faith, obedience, or even disobedience.[22] This indisputable principle is established in 9:11-13:

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Pharaoh is fitted into this model of divine judgment and hatred over against divine mercy and salvation, as based entirely on God’s will, minus man’s interaction in any sense. For God has mercy on whom he wills and hardens whom he wills (v15). Man’s will is not at all involved in God’s choice of either destiny (v16). In that exclusive, and very particular, context, Pharaoh was “raised up” to one end only: “to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed” (v17). So, the wider context states:

“14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

V18 sums up the entire case of Paul on this issue, for God’s mercy goes to one person/group not the other, and he hardens one person/group as he sees fit and not the other, with man’s action having no part, according to the text.

Nor will it do to say that Pharaoh was acting merely as a corporate figure.[23] Certainly, there is a corporate feature attached to each of the individuals cited in Romans 9. Nonetheless, they are individuals, and are measured as such as being part of a greater whole: those who are true Jews over against those who are not.  Even the wider context bears out the concepts of individuality and its amassed, plural, form:  branches taken from the tree; branches added to the tree; sons; sons the number of sands on the seashore; etc.. 

Arminianism typically goes back to the argument of free will in response to Calvinism’s position, in order to reiterate its foundational doctrine, and to then apply this, again, to Exodus, repeating that Pharaoh’s action was independent to God’s, and mentioning once again that both faith and disobedience imply free will in the individual, as the wider context of Romans 9-11 makes clear.[24]

I have to confess this repeated, ongoing, reliance on free will by Arminians is exegetically exasperating. As soon as one part of their argument is challenged, Arminianism resorts to repeating its free-will doctrine and its ‘patently obvious’ implications for man’s actions. But as Arminianism repeats itself, so we must, in response to it, repeat that free will has no impact at all on God’s sovereign choice, according to Romans 9 and its reference to Pharaoh. What counts is the divine choice alone. To respond to this contextual theology by repeating the free-will position is to, effectively, chant a mantra over and over in the hope that its words somehow, magically, become efficacious, turning the text into a free-will depository. Marcy is right to say that Beale is somewhat tied to his Calvinistic ‘system’; but his fault is miniscule compared to Marcy’s, whose article is swept up in theology, with exegesis playing a thoroughly subordinate supporting role.

But let us, for argument’s sake alone, allow that Arminianism’s account of free will and its relations are accurate. Even in that case, what has this to do with the verses we’ve cited in Romans 9 and their plain import? Romans is not Exodus. Is Romans 9 the same text as Romans 10 or Romans 11? Surely each biblical book, and each biblical chapter of a book, and then each section in a chapter, and then every verse in a section, have a right interpretively to stand unto themselves. Is not exegesis the art of reading each verse in context, and then the theologian is meant to compile that knowledge into a theology? Or, does a theological system come first, then exegesis? 

Moreover, how does this model of ‘free will’ measure up to Romans 9 in particular? Is the context really teaching a completely independent, abstracted, concept of man’s will? Isn’t the fictional complainant of 9:19 bemoaning that God’s will dominates over man’s will? Isn’t he saying that man’s will doesn’t even really get a chance in regard to God’s choice? Doesn’t this imply a relationship of the subordination of man’s will to God? Does this not also teach that man’s will is never, ever, independent, as if acting as an abstracted ‘faculty’ of man?

A response to Calvinism

Beale goes on to take his ‘influence’ model, his empowerment paradigm, placing it on the text of Romans 9. Some of his argument I will address here, other parts I will cite in the next section on NCT. To be fair to Beale, he does not really do any kind of theological deep dive in his article, and most of his theological comments are somewhat of the vanilla variety. For example, in a footnote he writes, “All that can be said is that Yahweh deemed it necessary to include Pharaoh’s disobedient refusal in the historical plan, which was to glorify himself.”[25] Where he does go deeper, especially in relation to Romans 9, is in regard to his belief in “equal ultimacy”.[26] God’s choice of both Pharaoh/the reprobate and of the ‘elect’/saved is based entirely and solely on his sovereign choice, it having no basis at all in Adam’s sin or any other factor, including man’s own sin, faith, or belief. Calvin is cited in support of this reading. God is acting out of his “intrinsic nature”, so that he is not at all reacting to, or conditioned by, the creature.[27]

If I’ve understood Beale correctly on this issue of conditionality, I go half-way with him. Certainly, in regard to God’s active choice of the elect and his decision not to make some vessels of honor and others of dishonor, this divine action is not at all based on man’s sin, will, faith, or obedience. God chooses a vessel of honor and discards the ‘lump’ that is left due to no other cause or reason that this is his sovereign decision. Up to this point, I am in full agreement with Beale. Where I think I part ways with him- for Beale’s reading is difficult to assess at this point- is respecting the background of Paul’s words here in Romans 9:13. There are various features, the first being that Paul is working always with redemptive-historical concerns firmly in the foreground and with predestination features running silently, in Romans 9-11, in the background. Romans 9-11 is not Romans 8, to state the obvious. Even Romans 8:28-30 itself and its predestinarian theology are set firmly within a sin/redemption background. Romans 9-11 is surely working with all these factors ‘running in the background’, as it were, but there is no explicitly stated theology of an eternal decree or an eternal choice in Romans 9-11. The references to God’s sovereign choice and election given in Romans 9, although issuing from God’s predestined and eternal plan recorded in Romans 8, are described from the point of view of where ‘the rubber hits the road’ of God’s predestined and eternal choice in action within time. 

Moreover, God’s interactions with the lump of clay, of Romans 9, is surely, in that redemptive-historical setting, not proving his ‘abstracted’ right to do whatever he wants with humanity, as if sin, faith, etc., don’t factor into mankind’s status. In other words, Paul is not teaching in Romans 9 that God in eternity viewed mankind as morally neutral, without sin or holiness, and then sovereignly decided to make one part of the clay as a vessel of honor and the other part a vessel of destruction. This is what I think Beale is saying (as I’ve stated, it’s hard to tell). Instead, Paul’s perspective is that in dealing with this ‘lump of clay’ that is assumed to be fallen humanity, God sovereignly ignores every single feature associated with fallen man’s actions to sovereignly choose one part for destruction and the other for salvation. With this in mind, God is not unfairly, then, condemning the group assigned to destruction, for the obvious implication is that the mass of the clay is already fallen. Yet, its final destiny is, in the illustration of the clay, yet to be determined. The fact that God can take some of the clay (all of which is fallen) and shape it unto honor is indicative of the intervention of the Creator’s/Potter’s grace to sinners. This model or choice, as I’ve already stated, is itself the working out of God’s eternal, predestined, choice.

This teaching accords with Paul’s prior theology in Romans 5:12ff. and further back again in Romans 3:1-20. It is the same division, or assumption, that underlies Paul’s Adamic theology of Romans 5:12ff. and 1 Corinthians 15, wherein the starting point is not the historical Adam considered as sinless, but the historical Adam as fallen. Nor is Adam ‘the elect’ from eternity past the focus of Paul’s theology here in Romans 9, for Paul calls upon the Jewish ‘fathers’ Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.. To change this condition of fallenness, grace in the form of Jesus Christ, given by God, had to intervene. This, as already argued, implies the divine plan of Romans 8. Also, contrary to Beale, I think this is the model Calvin works with in his commentary on Romans 9.[28]

If my reading of Beale is correct, it seems to me that Beale’s version of the divine will acting without any moral background in mind is as faulty as the Arminian reading of ‘free will’ in man: both views are theologically abstract concepts that are artificial. 

NCT perspective

NCTers will perhaps be surprised there is such a thing as an NCT reading of Romans 9. Yet, at the heart of the NCT hermeneutic is the belief that the NT has interpretive priority over the OT. The ‘this is that’ model of the Reformed and Dispensational theologies, in which the NT is just another, modified, version of the OT revelation is not found in the NT. There are times when the NT does replicate parts of the OT, but a New Covenant required not only new revelation, but it marked the coming of the Christ and the fulfilling of promises. The new creation imposed itself on the old, something that had not been done up until Jesus’ appearance. With this came new territory as far as Scripture was concerned. Although the NT fulfills the OT, it often does so in a manner that is typological, shadowy, broad, and figurative. Many call this ‘picture fulfillment’. 

Now, this difference in interpretation and revelation has an impact on doctrine, of course. For example, in the Exodus narrative Pharaoh’s actions are not tied into an eternal plan (stated or implied). Yet, Romans 9 implies some form of an eternal plan (which is actually stated in Romans 8), suggesting that God’s choice of Pharaoh as a vessel of dishonor and destruction was not created in time. Yet, as we saw, it was enacted in time, which is Romans 9’s emphasis. Another theological development between both texts is in regard to the two main actors of Exodus: Yahweh and Pharaoh. Exodus was exceptionally strong on Pharaoh’s rebellious actions. Yet, Paul says nothing about them in and of themselves. Not one instance is cited. Instead, he puts all his ‘eggs in the basket’ of God’s choice and his action as a potter who has, according to his own will and plan, determined Pharaoh’s destiny outside of his actions. To be pointed, in Romans 9, it is God alone who hardens; Pharaoh is not mentioned as hardening his own heart, and is not active in any sense whatever. He is utterly passive. Even Exodus’ nuanced emphasis on Pharaoh’s reactive acts is not at all recognized by Paul.

Beale helpfully draws out that Paul relies on the LXX to say that God’s power was demonstrated in Pharaoh, and was not merely revealed unto Pharaoh as the Exodus text conveys.[29] Pharaoh is the ‘bad guy’ and was appointed to be such by God. Also, Beale, noting the context of Romans 9:1-6 and Romans 9-11 as a whole, makes the observation that God’s dealings with Pharaoh and the elect are properly speaking about eternal damnation and eternal salvation, respectively.[30] That being said, the Exodus narrative does not get into eternal destinies as such. 

---

[1] G. K. Beale, “An Exegetical and Theological of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9,” Trinity Journal 5 (1984): 129-154.

[2] Stephen C. Marcy, “A Theological Response to G. K. Beale’s article”: An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9” ”, The Truth of the Gospel, October, 2022, https://goodnewsapologetics.com/2022/09/27/a-theological-response-to-g-k-beales-article-an-exegetical-and-theological-consideration-of-the-hardening-of-pharaohs-heart-in-exodus-4-14-and-romans-9/.

[3] D. A. Carson, “ “I will harden his heart so that he will let my people go”, Monergism.com, accessed August 9, 2024, https://www.monergism.com/blog/%E2%80%9Ci-will-harden-his-heart-so-he-will-not-let-people-go%E2%80%9D.

[4] Marcy.

[5] See Beale.

[6] Carson.

[7] The three miracles were, 1. turning the rod into serpent; 2. transforming a leprous hand; 3. turning the water of the Nile into blood. In reality, Moses skipped miracle #2 in Pharaoh’s case.

[8] Beale, 143.

[9] Cf., Beale, 146.

[10] Marcy.

[11] Marcy..

[12] Beale, passim.

[13] Beale, 145.

[14] Beale, 150.

[15] Same for Beale, 136, 145.

[16] Beale, 134.

[17] Marcy.

[18] Beale, 134.

[19] Beale, 142.

[20] R. C. Sproul, “Does God Create Unbelief?”, Ligonier Ministries, accessed September 9, 2024,  https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/does-god-create-unbelief#:~:text=If%20God%20wants%20to%20harden,of%20divine%20judgment%20upon%20him; Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1986), 116-118.

[21] John Calvin, Institutes 2.4.3.

[22] Cf., “Arminian Principles for Interpreting Romans 9”, Wesleyan Arminian, September 19, 2014, https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/arminian-principles-for-interpreting-romans-9/.

[23] “Arminian Principles”.

[24] Marcy.

[25] Beale, 150.

[26] Beale, 154.

[27] Beale, 149-154.

[28] John Calvin, commentary on Romans 9.  For more on this debate from a Calvinistic perspective, see the postlapsarian vs prelapsarian argument.

[29] Beale, 151.

[30] Beale, 153.