Trinity Journal 5 NS (1984) 129-154
Copyright © 1984 by
AN EXEGETICAL AND
THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION
OF THE HARDENING
OF PHARAOH'S HEART IN
EXODUS
4-14 AND ROMANS 9
G. K. Beale
Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary
1. Introduction
The ninth chapter of Romans has been one
of the key texts
throughout
church history for debates concerning predestination,
reprobation
and free will. One of the crucial
passages in this perplexing
chapter has
been vv 17-18, where Paul alludes to God's hardening of
Pharaoh's
heart (Exod 9:16 and chaps 4-14). While
this problematic
passage was
not a primary point of debate in the Augustinian-Pelagian
controversy,
it did become important beginning with the discussions of
the
Reformation period. In trying to refute
Erasmus' claim that
Pharaoh
first hardened his heart freely apart from divine influence,
Luther
attempts to argue that God was the ultimate cause. John Calvin
agreed with
Luther, but Sebastian Castellio and Jacob Arminius
agreed with
Erasmus. The debate has continued even
into the twentieth
century,
especially undergoing scrutiny in recently published literature.1
It is
surprising, however, that apparently no writer in the history of this
discussion
has ever attempted to exegete all of the hardening predictions
as they
appear in consecutive order throughout their context in Exod
4-14.2 Many attempt to solve the issue by focusing
on only one
hardening
statement and determining its implications for the others,
often
according to their own theological predispositions.3
1 Those most
recently arguing along the lines of Castellio and Arminius are R. T.
Forster and V. P. Marston (God's Strategy in Human History
[
House, 1973] 69-78, 155-77); J. D. Strauss ("God's Promise
and Universal History" in
Grace Unlimited [ed. C. H. Pinnock;
also J. W. Wenham, The Goodness of God (Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity, 1974) 123.
For the most recent Calvinistic view see John Piper, The
Justification of God (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1983) 139-54.
2 In this
respect, one of the best studies is that of Martin Luther (Bondage of the
Will
Tappan: F. H. Revell, 1957J 195-212), although the most complete
exegetical and
contextual study very recently is that of F. Hesse. Das
Verstockungsproblem im Alten
Testament (BZAW74; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann,
1955). In addition, since the first
draft
of the present article was completed, John Piper has published a
thorough exegetical
survey of the hardening statements as they occur consecutively in
Exodus 4-14 (The
Justification of God 139-54).
As will be seen, Piper's work lends impressive support to
the argument of this article.
3 This is
true of both the Arminian and Calvinistic traditions.
130 TRINITY
JOURNAL
Nevertheless, the historical debate has
generated the following
questions: (1) Who is the ultimate cause of Pharaoh's
hardening? (2) If
the
hardening is at all associated with God, is it an unconditional or
conditional
judgment with respect to Pharaoh's sin?
(3) When Paul
refutes the
idea that God is unjust (v 14) in rejecting Esau rather than
Jacob before
they were born (vv 10-13), does he give an understandable
explanation
for this refutation (ga<r, v
17), or does he merely refute the
idea without
offering any rationale in defense of God's rejection?4
(4) Does the hardening involve God's dealing with
certain individuals
or nations
only on the plane of history or does it have reference to a
general
principle concerning God's eternal rejection of man from
salvation? The purpose of this study is to attempt to
answer these
questions
through a contextual exegesis of each hardening passage in
Exod 4-14.5 Perhaps the conclusions may contribute to a
better under-
standing of
Paul's allusion to Pharaoh's hardening.
Therefore only
brief
comment will be made about Romans 9 at the conclusion of this
discussion,
since a thorough exegesis of that chapter is not intended
here.
II. The
Contextual Idea of Exodus 1-15
In Exodus 1-15 Yahweh is seen as beginning
to fulfill the patriarchal
promise by
means of redeeming Abraham's seed out of
this
"actualization of promise" context that God's revelation of his
name as YHWH
takes on most significance; this divine name em-
phasizes God
as the one who is to effect his patriarchical promise, since
intrinsic to
the meaning of the name itself is that of God as a
"controlling
and effecting reality."6
In view of this it is understandable
that Moshe
Greenberg says, "The plague story, then, revolves around
the
theme: revelation by God of His name--his
essence, his power, his
authority--to
Pharaoh, to the Egyptians, and to all men. . . [it is a]
demonstration
of God's essence to the arrogant pagan world and
onlooking
behalf of
III. The Terms Used for Hardening
Exodus 4-148 uses three terms
for hardening: hazaq ("to be strong"),
4 This
question is the corollary of that posed by John Piper concerning the basis of
Paul's denial that God is unjust in electing Jacob over Esau
("Prolegomena to Under-
standing Romans 9:14-15: An interpretation of Exod 33:19," JETS
22 [1979] 204).
5 This
article is a revision of part of my 1976 Th.M. thesis at Dallas Theological
Seminary.
6 Cf. W.
Eichrodt, The Theology of the Old Testament (vol. I;
times in contexts revealing him as a controller of historical
events. Most of these
occurrences are found in Exod 4-15.
7 Moshe
Greenberg, "The Thematic Unity of Exodus 3-11," WCJS 1 (1967) 153.
8 Verse
references in chap. 8 of exodus are from the MT, while versification according
to the English version is placed afterword in brackets.
BEALE:
HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S HEART 131
kabed ("to be heavy") and qasa
("to be difficult").9
In contrast to qasa,
hazaq and kabed are used abundantly
throughout the OT and are fluid terms.
In the light of OT usage, the essential
idea of hazaq is that of
"having
power to accomplish a function" or it may secondarily refer to
a strong
desire which is prerequisite for accomplishing something.10 It
can also
mean "to be firm, secure," which usually stresses the strength
of something
to continue to perform its function.11 The use of the word
with respect
to Pharaoh is probably similar to that in Josh 11:20,
where Yahweh
gives the Canaanites a strong desire to fight and
actually to
carry out a military campaign against
in the
Canaanites' destruction ("For it was of the Lord to make strong
their
hearts"). Likewise, Pharaoh
exhibited a "strong will" in refusing
to let
Kabed has the central meaning of
"heaviness, weightiness." In
its
most
concrete usage it refers to a quantitative heaviness (of wealth,
animals,
people, etc.) but it can also indicate a qualitative weightiness,
referring to
an intensification of the quality of actions or attitudes.12
From this
fluid backdrop, kabed in Exod 4-14 may be seen to be used
qualitatively
rather than quantitatively, with a stress on Pharaoh's
attitudes
rather than on actions. Pharaoh's
rejection of God's requests
becomes so
psychologically intensified that it results in an immovably
heavy
volition which cannot be changed.
The primary use of qasa in the OT
revolves around the idea of
"being
difficult." It is often used
qualitatively to refer to such an
intense
performance of an activity that the activity becomes "cruel,
fierce or
severe." Men's dealings with others
become so intensely
wrathful
that they are said to be "cruel" (Gen 49:7); a person's speech
becomes so
emphatically wrathful that it is "fierce, harsh;"13 a
battle
can be
fought so intensely that it becomes "severe."14 The word also
9 Hazaq
in the Piel occurs seven times (4:21; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:8, 17), and
five
times in the Qal (7:13, 22; 8:15[19]; 9:35; 14:4); kabed
occurs once as an adjective (7:14),
four times in the Hiphil (8:11[15], 28[32]; 9:34; 10:1); qasa
occurs twice in the Hiphil (7:3;
13:15). Contemporary OT
critics base part of their theory for diverse sources in Exod
4-14 on these different terms used for hardening and the supposed
different theology
associated with each. The
present approach assumes unity of authorship, since this was
presumably the way Paul would have viewed Exodus.
10
"power in accomplishing functions," especially of a military nature
(cf. Qal in Josh
17:13; Judg 1:28; 7:11: I Sam 17:50; 2 Sam 2:7; 10:11-12; 16:21; I
Chron 19:13; cf. Piel in
Judg 3: 12; Exek 30:24; Hos 7: 15; Nah 2:2; 3: 14; 2 Chron 26:9,
32:5; cf. Hiphil in 2 Kings
15:19; Isa 41:13; 45:1; Jer 51:12; Ezek 30:25; Nah 3:14; Dan
11:21; 2 Chron 26:8); "to
strengthen," in the sense of "encouraging one to carry
out an assigned function" (Deut
11:8; 31:6-7,23; Josh 1;6-7,9; 10:25).
11 E.g. cf.
in Qal, 2 Kings 14:5; Isa 28:22; Ezra 9:12; 2 Chron 25:3; 2 Sam 18:9;
cf. Piel,
Isa 33:23,54:2; Jer 10:4; Ps 64:5; 147:13.
12 E.g.,
when a person continually exhibits a certain quality, it could be said that he
is
"weighty" in that quality. Sometimes it indicates a stress on the
quality of man's or God's
activities (cf. Judg 20:34, the intensity of a battle; cf. I Sam
5:6, 11, the intensity of divine
judgment). On occasion it
may refer to an emphasis on the quality of man's attitude (cf.
2 Chron 25:19, an improperly high attitude, i.e. pride.).
13 Cf. Gen
42:7; I Sam 20:10; 2 Sam 19:44; I Kings 12:13; 1 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron 10:14.
14 Cf.2 Sam
2:17. Cf. also Cant 8:6.
132 TRINITY
JOURNAL
means
"difficulty" with reference to an action that cannot easily be
performed.15 When the judges of
role in
certain cases, these cases were said to be "difficult" (Exod 18:26;
Deut
1:17). A possible transitional link may
lie between this root's
qualitative
and resultative meanings: the intense
severity or fierceness
of an action
may be viewed from the difficult result it produces (2 Sam
2:17).16 In Exod 7:3 and 13:15 it appears to refer to
the severely
stubborn
nature of Pharaoh's volition which made his decision in favor
of
In conclusion, these three verbs in Exod
4-14 are all related to
Pharaoh's
refusal to obey Yahweh's command to release
or not the
verbs are fundamentally synonymous can only be answered
after an
exegesis of their contexts.
IV. Hebrew
and Egyptian Views of the Heart
In the OT leb ("heart")
may denote intellectual activity (204 times)
emotional
activity (166 times), volitional activities (195 times)17 and
personality
or character. The heart is also seen to
be spiritual in that
many of its
decisions concern one's religio-ethical relationship with
God.18 Perhaps the heart may be seen as that faculty
which combines
into a
psychical unity the volitional, intellectual, emotional and spiri-
tual aspects
of a person. Among these the volitional,
decision-making
aspects
should be viewed as primary but always influenced by the
thoughts and
emotions, all of which impinge on the spiritual.19 Conse-
quently, the
heart is often viewed as the inner, spiritual center of one's
relationship
to God.
In
15 Whether
of giving birth (Gen 35:16), performing labor (Exod 1:14; 6:9; Deut 26:6) or
answering a request (2 Kings 2:10). The metaphor of the
"stiff neck" in the OT compares
steer (cf. Jer 17:23; 19:15 [see Jer 5:5 and Hos 4:16]; Prov 29:1;
Neh 9:16, 17, 29; 2 Chron
30:8; 36:13; Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6,13).
16 Cf. Deut
15:7; 1 Sam 20:10; 1 Kings 12:13-14; 14: 6f.; Cant 8:6.
17
Statistics are derived from H. Wheeler Robinson ("Hebrew Psychology,"
The
People in the Book [ed. A. S. Peake;
that about a third of the 851 uses of leb "denotes the
personality as a whole, the inner
life, the character" (ibid. 362).
18 Cf.
Eichrodt, Theology. 2.142-4. E.g. Deut 5:29; 29:4; 1 Sam 16:7; Prov
4:23; 5:12;
6:21; Ezek 11:10; 36:26; Joel 2:13. Cf. F. H. von Meyenfeldt,
"Einige algemene
beschouwingen, gegrond op de beteknis van het hart in het Oude
Testament" in
Wetenschappelijke bijdragen (Festschrift D.
H. Th. Vollenhoven; ed. S. U. Zuidema and
K. J. Popma; Potchefstroom:
Franeker-T. Wever, 1951) 61, who observes that heart in
the OT is used 318 times in a religious sense (see further von
Meyenfeldt's Het Hart [Leb,
Lebab]in het Dude Testament [
19 For
similar conclusions cf Eichrodt Theology. 2.142-5; A. R. Johnson, The
Vitality
of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient
76-88; and E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament (New
York; Harper and Row, 1958)
163-5.
20 See H.
Bonnet, "Herz," Reallexikon der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte
(
W. deGruyter, 1952) 296-7;
57-8, 63-4, 126, 137.
BEALE: HARDENING OF
PHARAOH'S HEART 133
may be that
the concepts of the heart ('ib) as an inner spiritual centrum
and
volitional, decision-maker were emphasized even more by the
Egyptians
than by the Hebrews.21
Indeed, these aspects became so em-
phasized
that the heart came to be viewed as the "seat of destiny,"
determining
one's life.22 It is probably
because of this apparent
autonomy of
the heart that it came to be seen as a "second being of
man, next to
and outside of him,"23 and it even came to be said "that
'the heart'
of a man [is] his God himself."24 The heart was also seen as
a divine
instrument through which a god directed a man25 and the
organ by
which man could receive and comprehend divine command-
ments.26
The spiritual-intellectual-volitional
emphasis is found in the Exodus
plague
narratives, as will be seen in the exegetical section.
V. An
Exegetical Survey of the Hardening Passages
The hardening predictions will be exegeted
contextually as they
appear in
consecutive order in each distinct plague narrative scene.
Their
relationship to one another will be investigated, with special
focus upon
the subject of the hardening activity and the interrelationship
of the
hardening expressions. This exegesis is conducted with the aim
of answering
the four theological questions raised in the introduction.
The
pre-plague narratives (3:18-7:5)
The first hint of the hardening is found
in Exod 3:18-20, where
Yahweh
commands Moses to request
then says
that he "knew" (yada'ti) that Pharaoh would not permit this
request. The hint of hardening is found in the
prediction of Pharaoh's
refusal of
Moses' request in v 19. This
"hint" becomes an explicit
prophetic
announcement in 4:21.
Exod 4:21 has been the classicus locus of the hardening debates
in
Exodus. It will receive special focus here, but it
still cannot be
understood
fully until it is seen in its contextual and theological
relationships
with the other hardening predictions.
In v 2la Yahweh commands Moses to perform
wonders, since he
has given
Moses the power to do such; however, due to Moses'
uncertainty
about his whole mission (cf 4:1-17), Yahweh tells Moses
21 Besides 'ib,
hati is another characteristic Egyptian word for "heart," which
is
essentially synonymous with 'ib. So Bonnet, "Herz," 297 who argues
against A.
Piankoff's attempts to see in hati only reference to the
emotions and views 'ib as
referring exclusively to the intellect (Le couer dans les
textes egyptiens depuis l' Ancien
jusqu'a la fin du Novel empire [
22 Cf. H.
Brunner,"Das Hen ais Sitz des Lebengeheimnisses," ArchFOr 17
(1954-
1955) 140.
23 W.
Spiegelberg, "Das Hen ais zweites Wesen des Menschen," Zietschrift fur
Agyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 66 (1931) 36.
24 Morenz, Egyptian
Religion 64; Bonnet, "Hen," Reallexikon 297.
25 Morenz, Egyptian
Religion 65.
26 Jacob, Theology
164. n. I.
134 TRINITY
JOURNAL
that
Pharaoh's reaction to the signs will be (4:2lc, welo' yesallah et-
ha'am, "so that he will not send out the
people"), so that when this
reaction
occurs it will not discourage Moses, but he will remember
Yahweh's
prediction and realize that Yahweh is still in control of the
apparent
failure. It is evident that v 21b states
the definitive cause of
21c, i.e., wa'ani
'ahazzeq 'et-libbo ("but I will harden his heart").
The first consideration of the v 2lb
clause concerns the exact
nuance of
the Piel stem of 'abazzeq: the
specific sense could be
causative,
but it is better to see it having an intensive-iterative idea,
looking at a
"strengthening and repetition"27 of the hardening action,
with Yahweh
as sole subject "busying Himself eagerly"28 in the action.
The sense is
that Yahweh will not only be involved in hardening
Pharaoh's
heart once, but a repeated number of times,29 as the context
of the
following narratives makes evident. The prefixed conjugational
form of the
verb does not function as a cohortative, but as a specific
future.30 The relationship of clause b with clause c is
expressed by the
purposive waw.31
The specific lexical idea of the verb is that Yahweh
will give
Pharaoh the psychological power which would cause the ac-
complishment
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 accom-
plishment of
a non-theocratic function,32 although both are to be seen
as
contributing to a Heilsplan goal.
A further observation with respect to the
time scope of v 21 may be
made, as
seen in the verse's relation to vv 22-23: the time period
involved in
vv 21-23 is inclusive of 5:1-11:10, i.e., apparently from the
time that
Moses returns to
plague signs
(ten miracles), it is predicted that Yahweh will harden
Pharaoh's
heart with a view to Pharaoh's refusal.
Therefore, there are
two phases
of the hardening: (1) that which occurs
in 5:1-11:10 before
the final
plague and (2) that which occurs subsequent to the final
plague,
resulting in Egyptian disaster at the
17). Thus, 4:21 apparently indicates a divine
control of Pharaoh's
27 Cf. E.
Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (
1963) 141. #52F.
28 Ibid. 141
#52F.
29 That the
plural aspect of the Piel is definitely in mind is clear from clause a,
i.e.,
Moses was to perform a series of wonders (hammopetim), each
of which was to be
received negatively because of the repeated hardening action.
30 So W.
Richter, Die sogenannten vorprophetischen Berufungsgberichte (
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970) 122.
31 NASB
renders it "so that".
32 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). Most
of the instances in the Targum describe the "disposition" or
"design of his heart" being hardened. In the light of our discussion of leb,
Pharaoh's
inner spiritual being should also be seen as affected by this course
of action.
BEALE: HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S HEART 135
actions in
5:1-11:10.33 But further
discussion must bear out whether or
not this is,
indeed, the case.
The next passage deserving comment, even
though it does not
contain an
explicit hardening statement, is Exod 5:2, where Pharaoh is
viewed as
exercising his first refusal to Moses' first request. This
appears to
be the first partial fulfillment of Yahweh's hardening
prophecy in
4:21. However this could be doubted for
two reasons: (1)
If the 4:21
hardening relates only to "sign-reaction," then it cannot be
applied to
5:2, since no signs are given; that is, if 4:21 refers only to
Pharaoh's
hardened rejection of miraculous signs which were intended
to compel
him to release
fulfillment
since no signs are mentioned toward which he could be
hardened. (2) Some would not see Exod 5:2 as the
beginning fulfillment
of 4:21
since Yahweh is not mentioned there as causing Pharaoh's
refusal.34 Yet the following reasons argue in favor of a
connection between
4:21 and
5:2: (1) Although the 4:21 hardening is
integrally related to
the
performance of signs, it is even more related to refusal of Moses'
request to
release
the
performance of signs. Hence, signs could
be absent and hardening
present.35 The argument rests with the one attempting to
prove an
absolute and
strictly necessary relation between hardening and "sign-
reaction." (2) Even if the sign theory were valid, it
still could not be
shown that
Moses did not perform a sign similar to the ones he
performed
for
characteristic
of the plague narrative to assume certain events, without
33 So R. E.
Clements (Exodus [Cambridge: University Press, 1972] 30); J. Rhymer
(The Beginnings of a People [London: Sheed and Ward, 1966]
93-4). However, G. Beer
disagrees, viewing 4:21 as an antinomy between human freedom and
divine sovereignty
(Exodus [Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1939] 37).
34 I have
never seen this first alternative in print, but it is more viable than the
second.
If this alternative proves erroneous, the second should also.
35
Regardless of how one views the copulative between 4:21a and 4:21b, a
validation of
either view should not rest only on an interpretation of such a
fluid word as waw. In 4:21
two functions are in view:
(1) Moses' sign-performing function would supposedly
influence Pharaoh to release
Pharaoh negatively toward refusal, thus reversing any positive
effect the signs might have
had. However, the idea of a request is also assumed in 4:21 (d.
its relation to 3:18-20). In
4:21 it would seem that hardening is primarily related to the
refusal of request; it is
possible to have "request" without "signs" and
still have "hardening" towards "refusal."
Signs are meaningless without request since they are brought about
to convince one who
has already refused, but request is not meaningless without
signs. Furthermore, hardening
refers primarily to influence against request, and only
secondarily to signs when they
accompany requests, so that there may be the presence of request
without signs, but with
hardening. (This is not
only suggested by the psychology of hardening, but also by Exod
7:2-4; 14:4, 8, 17; Deut 2:30; Josh 11:20.) Furthermore, in the plague narratives
Pharaoh's
acts of refusal, which are appended with explicit hardening
notations, may still be seen as
acts resulting from hardening (cf. 10:10-11 with 10:1). See further infra.
136 TRINITY
JOURNAL
stating
their occurrence.36 (3) the
divine omnipotence necessary for a
proper
effecting of the Heilsgeschichteplan of Exodus is incongruous
with a
"by chance" refusal of Pharaoh, since this refusal was already an
integral
part of the plan.37 (4) Another argument for
God's control of
Pharaoh is
found in 5:22-23. In 5:22 it is said
that Yahweh had brought
harm to
to have
brought harm (hera' la'am hazzeh).
Verse 22 specifically refers
to the
previous events where hard bondage was imposed on
which was a
direct result of Pharaoh's refusal in 5:2; thus, both
bondage and
refusal are included in the thought of v 22, so that
Yahweh
should be seen as the ultimate cause of Pharaoh's refusal in
5:2. After 5:22 views Yahweh as cause of the
refusal resulting in harder
bondage, v
23 then sees Pharaoh as Yahweh's secondary effecting
agent.38 (5) The divine commentary on the Pharaohs
during the whole
course of
Egyptian bondage views their harsh actions toward
being
directly caused by Yahweh (Ps 105:25): hapak
libbam lisno
'ammo
lehitnakkel ba' abadayw
("He turned their heart to hate his
people, to
deal craftily with his servants").
The Pharaoh's actions of
Exod 5 were
the zenith of this harsh bondage, so that it would
certainly
seem to be included in the thought of Ps 105:25. This is
especially
interesting, since the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exod
14:4 is
described in 14:5 with wording similar to this Psalm (wayyehopek
lebab par'oh
wa'abadayw, "the
heart of Pharaoh and his servants was
turned
"). This may be further evidence
then that the refusal was a
beginning
fulfillment of 4:21.39
36 Cf. even 4:21 where the
"request" is assumed and not stated; in addition, many of
the ten plague narratives make the same omission, with the
assumption definitely in
mind. In three of the
narratives, Moses does not effect the plague as divine intermediary,
but God comes to act more directly in effecting the signs
himself. If 4:21 were taken to
mean that God would never effect a sign unless it were through the
instrumentality of
Moses, then these three narratives could never have occurred (cf.
8:13-19, 20-28; 9:6-7).
37 Cf. Exod
3:18-20 and note the phrase wa' ani yad'ati ki lo'-yitt'in 'etkem melek
misrayim lahalok (3:19).
Space does not allow for a word study of yada , but most
scholars admit the word has a much stronger sense than our Western
concept of
foreknowledge. It is
generally agreed that it revolves around the nuance "to be actively-
experientially involved in a relationship" (cf. the standard
Old Testament theologies, e.g.,
Vriezen, Jacob, Eichrodt, Pedersen, etc.). It is well known that this applies to
covenant
relations, but it may also refer to non-covenantal, judgmental
relations (Jer 16:21; Ezek
25:14; Ps 106:8). When used
of Yahweh the emphasis is upon his "knowing" which
"establishes the significance of what is known." (R. Bultmann,
ginwskw: The OT Usage
[of Yada']," TDNT.I.698;
cf. further Exod 33:12; Gen 18:19; 2 Sam 7:20; Ps 1:6; 144:3;
Jer 1:5; Hos 13:5; Amos 3:2).
"To know anything is to have power over it" (Jacob,
Theology 284).
The parallel could be drawn that just as Yahweh used Abraham in his
Heilsgeschichteplan to
fulfill a purpose (Gen 18:19), so he did with Pharaoh.
39 Piper, (Justification of God 142-3) makes the same basic
observation, but gives no
convincing reason for his assertion that the reference to "evil"
is limited only to the
physical realm and not to the moral.
39 Cf. inter
alios Clements (Exodus 34): "[in Exod 5] the divine plan at first appears
to
be thwarted and the situation temporarily worsens. Yet in reality God is at work in this
. . The Lord Himself is hardening Pharaoh's heart. . . . " F.
Hesse (Verstockungsproblem
8) sees kabed ("heavy") in Exod 7:14 as a verbal
adjective, which designates a hardened
condition of Pharaoh even before the beginning of the chap. 7
plague narrative.
BEALE: HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S HEART 137
The last
pre-plague narrative hardening prediction is 7:3. This is
similar to
4:21, but there are some major differences.
First, the Hiphil
'aqseh ("I will make difficult") is
used instead of 'ahazzeq in the Piel.
Furthermore,
the "request" is explicitly stated in 7:2, so that the
hardening is
especially related to Yahweh influencing the Pharaoh's
volition
against giving in to the request; 'aqseh probably has the
specific
lexical idea of "difficult," i.e., Yahweh's influence upon
Pharaoh's
mind and volition would be so "intensely severe" that a
positive
decision to the request would become too "difficult" to make,
so that only
a refusal could result. Exod 7:4a
emphasizes this refusal in
terms of
Pharaoh "not listening" to Aaron's request. Exod 7:3b most
likely
expresses the purpose of the hardened refusal:
Yahweh hardened
Pharaoh's
heart so that he could make a pyrotechnic display of his
"signs"
and "wonders" in
may be contrasted
with that of 4:21b-c where it was seen to be that of
influencing
Pharaoh not to let
4:21 the
sign performance was mentioned before the hardening activity,
whereas here
it is mentioned after.
As 4:21-23 denoted the first phase of
Pharaoh's hardening, so also
does
7:2-5. The phrase 'et-'ototay
we'et-mopetay be'eres ("signs and
wonders in
the land") refers to the first ten miracles (nine plagues)
which occur
in 7:9-11:10 (cf kol-hammopetim, 4:21a) and are the
precursors
of the climbing death plague of the Egyptian first-born
(12:29-31). Exodus 7:5 contains a further clarifying note
which 4:22-23
did not
clearly specify, viz., Yahweh's "stretching out his hand on
mentioned in
Exod 4:21-22 and must also include the
ance, and,
thus, the second phase of the hardening in Exod 14.41
A final note is in order with respect to
the nuance of the Hiphil
'aqseh since some have recently questioned the
normal causative sense
of the Hiphil
hardening predications with God as subject in the plague
narrative,
arguing for a "permissive" or "declarative" nuance and even
40 Most
translations render the waw connecting the hardening clause with the
following sign clause merely by a simple "and" (so LXX,
Vulgate, KJV, Jerusalem Bible,
Luther). However, the NASB
renders it in a purposive (resultative?) manner ("that"),
whereas the NIV and RSV" translate
it circumstantially (and though). The former views
the hardening as the basis for the signs, while the latter views
the signs as instigating the
hardening response of "not listening." The purposive use is favored by the context
of
Exod 4-14, since statements are found throughout which harmonize
better with it (so
Exod 3:18-20; 9:16,28-30; 10:1-3,29; cf. Rom 9:17). Furthermore, in many of the plague
narratives Pharaoh is not given opportunity to respond to the
apparent threat, but the
threatened judgment begins immediately to take place, so that the
threat "actually puts
the forthcoming judgment into motion" (C. Westermann, Basic
Forms of Prophetic
Speech [Phil:
kundigung narratives appear in Exod 7:14-25,
26[8:1]-8:11[15]; 8:16[20]-28[32]; 9:1-7, 13-35
and 10:1-20 (note esp. 7:17, 19; 8:1[5], 19[24]; 9:5, 18). This
observation fits in better with a
pre-sign hardening scheme.
41 The final
phrase of 7:4, bispatim gedolim
("by great judgments"), must also refer to
the same thing.