A Willing Party Unto Death: Pharaoh’s Will and God’s Judgment
This is my second paper written in Torrey.
A Willing Party unto Death:
Pharaoh’s Will and God’s Judgment
The divinely determined demise of Pharaoh in Exodus[1] is one of the most significant emotional hurdles for Christians and non-Christians alike. This scenario seems incompatible with God’s love and leads many to question His omnibenevolence, which in turn compromises any accurate understanding of God’s nature. This particular difficulty is created by the readers’ varying notions of sovereignty and love in Exodus. Some exegetes propose that if God’s sovereignty is absolute and self-determining, then Pharaoh’s will cannot be involved in the judgment against him. In this view God ceases to love or extend mercy to Pharaoh and the Egyptian king is understood strictly as a vessel of wrath. In their approach, these readers overlook both the progression of God’s judgment demonstrated through the narrative and the Lord’s love for Pharaoh. Although the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart appears to be strictly arbitrary, it paradoxically demonstrates the God-given freedom of man’s self-destructive will. God’s love for Pharaoh endures alongside His wrath, because He allows Pharaoh’s choice to endure and does not deprive him of his will in order to judge him.
The relationship between God’s love, sovereignty, and judgments must be seen in the coherency given through Exodus. Only then can God’s interaction with Pharaoh’s will be understood. The proper meaning of love is to desire for another that which is good. Thus God’s love for humanity abides in His good will to give of Himself to humanity that they may know Him, since He is the source of all goodness. In Exodus love is seen latently in God’s jealousy for His glory and desire to be known by humanity.[2] God’s sovereignty refers to His rule and control over all things and maintains that God’s decree determines the course of all events. This general understanding of sovereignty is emphasized in Exodus by the king-like command that He has over what will happen with the Israelites, despite the opposing will of Pharaoh.[3] Finally, these decrees and actions of God, whether they are passive or active, are referred to as His judgments.[4] Broadly speaking, all of God’s actions are to be seen as judgments. God in His sovereignty and love judges that Pharaoh will be given his freely chosen sin as punishment. Thus there is no discrepancy between Pharaoh’s choice and God’s judgment.
Narrative flow
In the narrative flow of Exodus, readers may observe three essential points that propound Pharaoh’s will coinciding with God’s judgment. The first element that demonstrates Pharaoh’s active will is the fact that Pharaoh is already in a state of hardness by the time God sends Moses to him. Second, Pharaoh hardens his own heart after God reveals himself as God. Third, Pharaoh is able to harden his heart one last time even after God has hardened it. If Pharaoh’s will is left intact then the narrative in turn demonstrates the consistency between God’s judgment and
Pharaoh’s will.
The most notable feature of the first point is the insight that Moses gives into Pharaoh’s past will and character. After Moses and Aaron perform the first miraculous sign before Pharaoh, which the magicians are able to duplicate, Moses states, “Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them.”[5] This is the first reference to the actual state of Pharaoh’s heart, besides God’s earlier revelatory insight into what will happen.[6] The language Moses employs reveals what is happening. The subject of the sentence is Pharaoh’s heart, which is described by the verb hazaq, meaning “to be strong or hard.” Hazaq is in turn coupled with the word qal, which means “to be,” and describes a state, rather than an action. Pharaoh’s heart is already set in opposition to God before Moses and Aaron perform the miracle. Pharaoh has already chosen.
The second element revealed in the narrative is Pharaoh’s continued hardening of his own heart in response to the manifestation of God’s sovereignty through the plagues. Pharaoh manages to harden his heart two times[7] before God first intensifies the stubbornness of his heart, which is after the sixth plague is well underway.[8] Other references to Pharaoh’s participation use Pharaoh’s heart as the subject rather than Pharaoh himself. This continued reference to Pharaoh’s heart as remaining in a state of hardness denotes Pharaoh’s commitment to and fixity in the choices he makes early on in response to God’s deeds.[9] Where Pharaoh is the subject, the term used by Moses to describe the act of hardening is kadeb, which means “to be heavy,” along with hiphil, meaning “to make,” referring to caused states or conditions. Kadeb is used elsewhere in Scripture and has the general connotation of an organ of perception that no longer receives outside stimuli due to malfunction, degeneration, or age of that organ. This reinforces the claim that Pharaoh contributes to the fixity of his choice by making his heart “heavy,” or unreceptive.
The third point particularly demonstrates the consistency between God’s judgment and Pharaoh’s will. After God hardens Pharaoh’s heart Pharaoh is yet able to harden it once more after the seventh plague.[10] Moses recounts that “when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart.” In the passage Moses uses kadeb with hiphil. Pharaoh once again chooses “to make heavy” his heart, in one final act of rebellion. The result of this choice is twofold. First, the heaviness that Pharaoh imposes on himself reinforces the stubborn severity of hazaq, which Moses uses in the verse to follow to describe the state of his heart. This shows that Pharaoh’s last exertion of his will is to remain hard. Second, from this choice onward God alone hardens Pharaoh’s heart.[11] Pharaoh misses his last opportunity to repent and submit to God’s sovereignty. Thus, since Pharaoh fixes himself in hardness by choice, God’s judgment is not against Pharaoh’s will. God gives Pharaoh his confirmed choice.
Still, the question remains of God’s direct hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. How can God’s direct work that brings Pharaoh to destruction be considered consistent with Pharaoh’s free directing will? The answer is that Pharaoh has already chosen rebellion and thus God’s continues to harden him, unconditionally giving him over to the choices that he has already made. God intensifies the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, but the text does not state that God causes the hardness. If God had formed and imposed Pharaoh’s obstinacy upon him then one could contest the punishment’s continuity with Pharaoh’s will. However, Pharaoh by the clear meaning of the passage willingly invests himself in what proves to be his undoing. Pharaoh wants his sin, so God gives it to him, which ultimately leads him to pursue the Israelites and death.
Pharaoh is quite resolved in his rebellion. God is not hardening the heart of a man who wants his heart to be softened. Thus any notion of God's judgment as being arbitrary and wholly independent of Pharaoh's will cannot be reconciled to the narrative.
Pharaoh’s will
Opposing Exegetes propose that since God enacts sovereign judgment against Pharaoh the judgment is not Pharaoh’s choosing. They believe that to claim Pharaoh is given his own choice is to claim that he decides how God acts. This is a direct infringement upon God’s sovereignty since Pharaoh’s will is turned into the determining standard for God’s action.
However, though Pharaoh chooses hardness of heart over humility, Pharaoh does not choose the consequences of his choice. Rather they are brought upon him by God’s sovereign decree. Once Pharaoh makes a choice, his choice constrains him to ultimate demise. God’s judgment enacted against Pharaoh is that he receives what he foolishly chooses in the face of God’s glory. In this way Pharaoh’s choice is the judgment given to him, but he does not choose judgment. God intensifies Pharaoh’s rebellion, but this judgment does not disregard Pharaoh’s choice, rather God’s judgment is given as a consequence to Pharaoh’s invested will. Man gets to choose to what end he invests himself, but he does not get to choose what will happen as he moves towards that end; the ultimate result of all things is determined by God.
God’s Raising Pharaoh up
In opposition to the claim that Pharaoh is a willing party in his own death, certain readers argue that since God has decreed the outcome of Pharaoh’s life, Pharaoh cannot contest the will of God. According to this view, since God specifically states that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart and that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses all causality must be attributed to God, and the notion of human agency disregarded. Pharaoh’s heart will be hardened, his kingdom will fall, and God will be glorified, which is an end not dependant on the will of Pharaoh, but an exercise of God’s good will to do as He pleases. According to this interpretation, when God says, “for this purpose I have raised you up,” in Exodus 9:16, He is claiming responsibility for causing the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart. If God raises up Pharaoh then it is God alone who determines the life and choices of Pharaoh, because to decree is to cause.
God's activity is the final, trumping, ultimate will that determines what will happen. However, an essential distinction must be made between decree and cause. God’s decrees are absolute, but not universal in nature, which means that God decrees by both causation and allowance. All acts of causation are decrees, but not all decrees are acts of causation. What God causes is based on the direction of His own will and wise council, independent of what humanity thinks He should do. An example of God’s causation is the way in which He deals with sin. Human beings do not decide their punishment or time of judgment, but God in His own wisdom determines what will happen and when. Allowance refers to God’s sustainment of the choices of men. While God causes judgment, He does not cause the choices of the one whom He judges. Thus what God decrees is not essentially caused by Him; God allows choice, such as in the case of Pharaoh’s repeated rebellion and hardening of his own heart. God decrees Pharaoh’s hard heart by permitting his choice, but He does not cause his hardness of heart.
The phrase “raised up,” should be understood in the sense of allowance, not causation. God is never said to cause the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, rather He is the one who “raised [Pharaoh] up.” Within the literary context, “raised up” means that God did not destroy Pharaoh or Egypt, but allowed them to live and continue in their rebellious ways. This ardent display of divine mercy, judgment, and sovereignty is what God commands Moses to tell Pharaoh before enacting the seventh plague. Right before this verse God reveals to Pharaoh the extent of His power over the course of human life, stating “For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth.”[12] Readers may observe that Pharaoh, despite his rebellion, has been given God’s merciful sustainment, yet he also has been foreknown and determined for destruction. God, in patience, relents from sending judgment against Pharaoh for his rebellion and this patience is how one ought to understand God’s following claim to sovereignly raising Pharaoh up.
There is then no discrepancy between God’s judgment and Pharaoh’s will, since God’s allowance of Pharaoh’s choice is His decree. Sundering God’s mercy from what qualifies as His decree against Pharaoh is not possible. God's actions are judgments since they have direct effects on the wills of men and will either make their desired ends attainable or not. God alone exists by virtue of Himself and thus all that is created must receive existence from His sustaining will. God allows Pharaoh to choose to what end he devotes himself, but he does not get to decide what God will do. God’s will is self-sufficient and eternal. Humanity does not cause God to act nor to act in the way He does and what man is able to do is determined by God. God can either allow the man to continue to live and pursue his desires, in other words, "raise him up", or break him down. It is God’s good will to judge how He pleases in accord with His nature.
God’s desire to be known: the Plagues
God’s plagues are some of the most memorable and awe inspiring judgments that God records in Scripture. Through these plagues God brings wrath upon the Egyptians, but that wrath is not devoid of love. The plagues are stern warnings given out of God’s desire for the Israelites and Egyptians to know Him. The Hebrew word for “know” is used eleven times in God’s confrontation with Pharaoh.[13] In the context, “to know” has the general connotation of both ascribing to Him the glory due His name and submitting to his authority. For this reason God institutes the plagues.
God’s merciful attempts to soften Pharaoh’s heart are commonly eclipsed by the discussion of Pharaoh’s subsequent hardening. However, Moses and Aaron, the plagues, magicians, and multiple opportunities to repent are all provisions God gives to Pharaoh in order to bring him to repentance. The plagues are often misunderstood as strictly acts of wrath. The plagues are not merely punitive deeds intended to chasten Pharaoh, but stem from God’s will to make Himself known. God explains His actions to Pharaoh and Moses as being concerned with humanity knowing Him as He is. The plagues in Exodus are instituted in response to Pharaoh’s retort “I do not know the LORD,”[14] and it is Pharaoh’s reluctance to humble himself before the Lord that keeps the plagues going. This is captured in God’s words to Pharaoh, “How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me?”[15] Pharaoh pride is contrasted with his knowing the Lord. Thus God’s desire to be known is a desire to humble men before His majesty, which in turn is the very meaning of love.
Opponents appeal to the use of these plagues as an ultimate means to pour out wrath upon Pharaoh. These exegetes contend that mercy and wrath are two distinct ends that cannot be pursued by the same action. Thus God is either bringing a judgment of wrath or of mercy. Due to God’s revelatory insight, readers ought to then consider them as always intended as means of wrath.
The error of this view is to ignore the fact that God’s mercies turn into judgments of wrath when they are rejected. The issue is whether God is sincere or duplicitous when He offers Pharaoh repentance. They are surely mercies, for deception and double-mindedness are wholly contradictory with God’s simple truthfulness.
God’s love for Pharaoh is primarily seen in His desire to bring Pharaoh into humble submission. God wants Pharaoh to be humbled, but Pharaoh of his own free will chooses to be hardened. God demonstrates His love for Pharaoh by giving him a choice. If God takes away Pharaoh’s will and does not allow him the means by which he can accept God’s offer of mercy then God ceases to love Pharaoh, no longer wishing to be known by him. Thus Pharaoh’s condemnation is not an arbitrary act of God.
Conclusion
The sovereign Lord must be recognized for who He is and submitted to accordingly. Pharaoh’s choice to exalt himself in the face of God’s sovereignty is allowed, sustained, and used by God to glorify Himself. If men do not humble themselves before God, but choose to harden their hearts, they will be given over to their rebellion by God. The final judgment against the high hearted is God’s sovereign judgment. God’s raising up, hardening, and destroying of Pharaoh are some of the most powerful displays of God’s sovereignty and love. God’s mercies when rebelled against are judgments, but surely when offered they are nevertheless means by which God seeks to bring men to the knowledge of Himself.
[1] Exod. 4-14 (ESV).
[2] Ibid., 6:7; 7:5.
[3] Ibid., 3:10; 6:1.
[4] Ibid., 6:6; 7:4.
[5] Ibid., 7:13.
[6] Ibid., 4:21; 7:3.
[7] Ibid., 8:15, 32.
[8] Ibid., 9:12.
[9] Ibid., 7:14, 22; 8:19; 9:7.
[10] Ibid., 9:34.
[11] Ibid., 10:1, 20, 27; 14:8, 17.
[12] Ibid., 9:16.
[13] Ibid., 6:7; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; 14:4, 18.
[14] Ibid., 5:2.
[15] Ibid., 10:3.
