Do you think Pharaoh being hardened is a foreshadowing of Israel?

[Skandelon]

Pharoah, by his own choice, didn't want the Israelites to go anywhere. God didn't have to "make" him think that. He was self-hardened in that respect. Or "stubborn," if you will. That was his choice.

God needed him to stay that way until He had accomplished His ultimate purpose through him. What purpose? For His name to be glorified and revered in all the earth. 2 or 3 plagues may have been enough to convince Pharoah's stubborn will. Don't you think you would have been convinced after the rivers turned to blood??? That would change anyone's mind. Not Pharaoh's! Why? God had judicially hardened him. He had sealed him in his disobedience, if you will. Even the most convincing signs and wonders wouldn't shake this man's resolve. Why? God had a purpose to accomplish through this man's hardened heart. (The Passover had to happen)

This is what Paul is addressing in Romans 9. He is comparing what God did to Pharoah with what He was doing with the Jews of his day. How could these men see him put a guys ear back on and still kill him? How could they see him heal dozens of people, feed thousands more and cast out demons and not believe? Same reason that Pharoah couldn't believe Moses. They were being hardened.

Pharoah was hardened so God could accomplish His will in the Passover, the Jews were hardened so God could accomplish His will with the atonement of the Passover Lamb.

The Jews hardening was just for a time and it wasn't to keep them from salvation forever. Paul explains this in Romans 10 and 11 very clearly. He fully expects to see some provoked to jealousy and be saved.

So, those hardened (as spoken of in Romans 9) are not the non-elect reprobates that Calvinistic doctrine tries to make them into. This is the greatest error of Calvinistic doctrine yet very few Calvinists are even willing to deal with it.

 

[JesusFan]

Pharoah, by his own choice, didn't want the Israelites to go anywhere. God didn't have to "make" him think that. He was self-hardened in that respect. Or "stubborn," if you will. That was his choice.

God needed him to stay that way until He had accomplished His ultimate purpose through him. What purpose? For His name to be glorified and revered in all the earth. 2 or 3 plagues may have been enough to convince Pharoah's stubborn will. Don't you think you would have been convinced after the rivers turned to blood??? That would change anyone's mind. Not Pharaoh's! Why? God had judicially hardened him. He had sealed him in his disobedience, if you will. Even the most convincing signs and wonders wouldn't shake this man's resolve. Why? God had a purpose to accomplish through this man's hardened heart. (The Passover had to happen)

This is what Paul is addressing in Romans 9. He is comparing what God did to Pharoah with what He was doing with the Jews of his day. How could these men see him put a guys ear back on and still kill him? How could they see him heal dozens of people, feed thousands more and cast out demons and not believe? Same reason that Pharoah couldn't believe Moses. They were being hardened.

Pharoah was hardened so God could accomplish His will in the Passover, the Jews were hardened so God could accomplish His will with the atonement of the Passover Lamb.

The Jews hardening was just for a time and it wasn't to keep them from salvation forever. Paul explains this in Romans 10 and 11 very clearly. He fully expects to see some provoked to jealousy and be saved.

So, those hardened (as spoken of in Romans 9) are not the non-elect reprobates that Calvinistic doctrine tries to make them into. This is the greatest error of Calvinistic doctrine yet very few Calvinists are even willing to deal with it.

.


The thing here is the Jesus claimed that the Jews who refused to accept him as messiah were childreren of Devil...

NOT a special hardening case, all except those whom God drew to Christ would stay in same state, lost "as the Devil is"

So think cals can indded use Romans to show that God has chosen out of a reprobate Race a group of people unto His Name!

 

[kyredneck]

I'd say you're right on track, except that I'd modify it to say that the entire account of the exodus from Egypt (the land of bondage) is one huge type of the repemption of His people from apostate Judaism and the curse of the law.

[edit] I'd also say that Pharoah would be the personification of the first head of the seven headed beast of Revelation.

 

[righteousdude2]

In Romans 1 Enhances Your Thoughts on Pharoh

Paul tells us in Romans 1:18-32, especially verse 26 (and several others) - that, "For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions."

This turning over of mankind to their own thoughts, passions, lusts, self-love, etc., is the NT version of the hardening of the heart of Pharoh. However, instead of the leader of a nation paying the price, individuals will pay the price for rejecting God!!!

Great post....:thumbs:

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[thomas15]

So, those hardened (as spoken of in Romans 9) are not the non-elect reprobates that Calvinistic doctrine tries to make them into. This is the greatest error of Calvinistic doctrine yet very few Calvinists are even willing to deal with it.

A few comments:

To me, it appears that you are trying to say that the Pharaoh types are either (in fact) of the elect or that there is no such thing as the elect. Hard to tell from a strict reading of your statement. Could you clear this matter up?

I will take the liberty of removing the double negative from the first part of your statement. It thus reads: So, those hardened (as spoken of in Romans 9) are reprobates. If this is a valid method on my part, I ask what of these reprobates?

I'm not a big fan of John Piper with respect to his popular works but to say that Calvinists are unwilling to deal with this doctrine tells me that you are unaware of Pipers work The Justification of God: an exegetical and theological study of Romans 9:1-23 (1993 Baker Academic). This is one of those works that every serious student of the Bible in general and Romans in particular should read (and enjoy).

 

[thomas15]

I'd say you're right on track, except that I'd modify it to say that the entire account of the exodus from Egypt (the land of bondage) is one huge type of the repemption of His people from apostate Judaism and the curse of the law.

You left out the part where you discuss how this effects the apostate Church and the curse of sin.

 

[kyredneck]

You left out the part where you discuss how this effects the apostate Church and the curse of sin.

?????

What has this to do with the price of eggs in China?

[edited for offensive remark]

 

[Skandelon]

A few comments:

To me, it appears that you are trying to say that the Pharaoh types are either (in fact) of the elect or that there is no such thing as the elect. Hard to tell from a strict reading of your statement. Could you clear this matter up?

I do believe the scriptures speaks of "the elect." The term typically refers to the Jews, as God's covenant people. There is also the remnant of Israel, which refers to those Jews chosen to for the "noble purpose" to take the message of redemption to the world (i.e. Paul; apostles). Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is constantly making the argument that the Gentiles have been God's chosen from the beginning as well and this is NOT a unique position for the nation of Israel alone. The Gentiles are being GRAFTED IN (elected) just as Israel had been while now the Jews are being hardened in their rebellion.

I will take the liberty of removing the double negative from the first part of your statement. It thus reads: So, those hardened (as spoken of in Romans 9) are reprobates. If this is a valid method on my part, I ask what of these reprobates?

That is not a double negative because "non-elect" is not a "negative," it is a condition of an individual.

Those hardened have the potential of being provoked to envy and saved according to Paul in Romans 11:14, thus they can't be the non-elect reprobates of the Calvinistic system, because the non-elect have NO HOPE of salvation.

I'm not a big fan of John Piper with respect to his popular works but to say that Calvinists are unwilling to deal with this doctrine tells me that you are unaware of Pipers work The Justification of God: an exegetical and theological study of Romans 9:1-23 (1993 Baker Academic). This is one of those works that every serious student of the Bible in general and Romans in particular should read (and enjoy).

I didn't mean to suggest they were "unwilling" to deal with any particular passage, but instead to suggest the method they choose to deal with it isn't consistent with the whole of the passage. To suggest that the hardened individuals being referred to in Romans 9 represent the non-elect aren't the same hardened individuals in Roman 10 and 11 who may be provoked to envy and saved isn't consistent.

 

[Bro. James]

A fearful thing:

Falling into the the hands of The Living God. Jehovah showed Himself sovereign and omnipotent many times to Israel and Egypt, i.e. the elect and the lost. He has shown Himself omnipotent through His other sheep, not of the fold of Israel (probably not called latter day saints).

The Pharaoh thought himself to be God. Lucifer has a similar notion. Mankind is in there too--following the god of this world--including Humanism and a large portion of "Christendom". Jehovah has revealed Himself in many ways(not the religions of the world) in many generations--all of us are without excuse. Interesting: a lot of effort has been expended to prove the Exodus never happened--probably by the same group who believe Jesus never happened. Satan is alive and well on planet earth.

This thread speaks of hardening of the heart and making choices--and then kind of stumbles through the doctrines of election and predestination. Has anyone stumbled across Ephesians Ch. 1? Has anyone considered what "according to the good pleasure of His Will", vs. 5, means? See also vss. 9-11; the whole chapter speaks to these doctrines. See also Ch. 2.

We still have two kinds of humans: children of God and children of Satan.
Yet, God is still calling the lost sheep--Jesus is calling them out daily through the preaching of the Word--for His good purpose and pleasure. When the last one is called--then what?

Praise the Lord for His Sovereign Grace. We all deserve Hell.

Peace,

Bro. James

P.S. I am not a Calvinist.

 

[Skandelon]

This thread speaks of hardening of the heart and making choices--and then kind of stumbles through the doctrines of election and predestination. Has anyone stumbled across Ephesians Ch. 1? Has anyone considered what "according to the good pleasure of His Will", vs. 5, means? See also vss. 9-11; the whole chapter speaks to these doctrines. See also Ch. 2.

I have discussed Eph. 1 extensively in other threads and their are numerous commentaries who have "stumbled across" this chapter as well, so I'm not sure what you are insinuating.

We still have two kinds of humans: children of God and children of Satan.

What are the children of God prior to becoming His children?

Praise the Lord for His Sovereign Grace. We all deserve Hell.

Amen!

P.S. I am not a Calvinist.

Good. Neither am I.

 

[Bro. James]

I have discussed Eph. 1 extensively in other threads and their are numerous commentaries who have "stumbled across" this chapter as well, so I'm not sure what you are insinuating.

What are the children of God prior to becoming His children?

Amen!
Good. Neither am I.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
No insinuation intended. Sorry, for apparently having offended.

It is a fact: the battle between Jon Chauvin and Jacob Arminius continues. There is a sizeable schism among "Baptist" ranks regarding how one chooses to accept Jesus as Savior. Some say we have a chance to make the right choice using our free will; others say we find the Grace of God irresistible by the conviction by The Holy Spirit bearing witness to the preaching of The Word; in as much as our free wills are enslaved to our sin nature in total depravity. We know not of ourselves how to make the correct choice. Eph. 2:8 makes a good case for this position.

The names of the children of God were written in the Lamb's Book of Life, before the foundation of the world. Jesus said He kept them all safe--except one. God calls them out according to His good purpose and pleasure--whether they are willing or not. Moses did not want to go--yet he was born to go. He went anyway; yet never made the promised land.

Paul was selected before he was born--long before he was called--kicking against the pricks. This is all the purpose, pleasure, and will of Jehovah. On the other side: yes, Sir, Pharoah and his army were born to perish in the Red Sea by the wrath of the True and Living God--a witness to the world and to His people.

The lost sheep are still being called to the fold--they hear His voice and follow Him; another they will not follow.

The goats are still goats--they will follow most anybody--usually themselves. We live in a world of narcissists.

This surely helps answer the question: Why do millions die, never having heard The Gospel?

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[thomas15]

Those hardened have the potential of being provoked to envy and saved according to Paul in Romans 11:14, thus they can't be the non-elect reprobates of the Calvinistic system, because the non-elect have NO HOPE of salvation.

Ok.

But there are those who are considered (or consider themselves) Calvinistic who like myself who are dispensational but struggle with the concept of Limited Attonement and would not agree with our Covenant brethern who claim that God is finished with the Jews as a people. I have been accused of being a 5 pointer on this board, a label I'm uncomfortable with though I'm convinced that man is totally depraved.

 

[Skandelon]

Can you answer the question? What are the children of God prior to becoming His children?

 

[zrs6v4]

"God had judicially hardened him. He had sealed him in his disobedience, if you will. Even the most convincing signs and wonders wouldn't shake this man's resolve. Why? God had a purpose to accomplish through this man's hardened heart. (The Passover had to happen)"

I'm just trying to process your thinking. What do you mean by "sealed him in his disobedience?"

In your mind what does God's hardening look like, how does He do it? How do you think a Calvinist thinks God did it?

This is what Paul is addressing in Romans 9. He is comparing what God did to Pharoah with what He was doing with the Jews of his day. How could these men see him put a guys ear back on and still kill him? How could they see him heal dozens of people, feed thousands more and cast out demons and not believe? Same reason that Pharoah couldn't believe Moses. They were being hardened.

Back to my first question, how did God harden? Was it something God had to do within them or something God didn't do within them? If it is something He intentionally does in their hearts "so they won't believe" what are the implications? If it is something He does not do (IE leaves them in depravity?) what are the implications?



I realize I didn't hit the main point of your post and that is due to the need to spend time looking at Romans 9-11, its been awhile.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm just trying to process your thinking. What do you mean by "sealed him in his disobedience?"

In your mind what does God's hardening look like, how does He do it?

In my view judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth which could otherwise lead to repentance. So God is not said to have caused or inticed anyone...he simply lets them continue down their already self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to repent prior to His great purpose being served.

Let's look at another analogy. Suppose my 3 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking...she is about to steal a cookie and she knows she isn't supposed to.


Now, as a parent I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie...at least until the next time she was alone. However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pouce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I didn't cause it. I could have ended it my simply showing myself, but I didn't. This is like hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to sin. Am I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.

Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him? Of course. He could have done a "Damascus road experience" with all the Jews if He wanted to. He didn't. Instead we see Christ telling his disciples to keep things quite until the right time. We see him hiding the truth in parables. WHY? If men are born deaf, blind and dumb to the truth why would he need to do this??? He did it because he didn't want them to come to repentance YET! He had a bigger redemtive purpose to accomplish through them first.

KEY POINT: Don't allow the context of that judicial hardening of the Jews cloud your view of men's inherent nature. Men are very much capable of hearing, seeing and repenting when confronted by the powerful gospel truth if they have not been judicially blinded to that truth.

How do you think a Calvinist thinks God did it?

Some might agree with the explanation above regarding hardening, but my issue with the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is that they seem to presume that those being "shown mercy" are the elect who will certainly be saved and those being "hardened" are the non-elect who will certainly be condemned; when in reality those being hardened temporarily may come to faith and be saved (Rom 11:14), and those being shown mercy better not boast least they are cut off (Rom 11:20-21).

 

[JesusFan]

In my view judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth which could otherwise lead to repentance. So God is not said to have caused or inticed anyone...he simply lets them continue down their already self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to repent prior to His great purpose being served.

Actually, its better tom say that God elected/chose out of Isreal a faithful remnant unto Himself, just as he did in time of Elijah!

And jesus made it quite clear those who refused Him as messiah was due to being spiritually blinded by satan, 'children of theSatan"

Think point here is NOT Isreal was "judicially hardened" by God, its that ALL in sin, in Adam, are found to be children of Satan, and as such, ONLY those God chose to save out from them would be saved and elected by god!

Let's look at another analogy. Suppose my 3 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking...she is about to steal a cookie and she knows she isn't supposed to.


Now, as a parent I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie...at least until the next time she was alone. However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pouce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I didn't cause it. I could have ended it my simply showing myself, but I didn't. This is like hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to sin. Am I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.

Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him? Of course. He could have done a "Damascus road experience" with all the Jews if He wanted to. He didn't. Instead we see Christ telling his disciples to keep things quite until the right time. We see him hiding the truth in parables. WHY? If men are born deaf, blind and dumb to the truth why would he need to do this??? He did it because he didn't want them to come to repentance YET! He had a bigger redemtive purpose to accomplish through them first.

KEY POINT: Don't allow the context of that judicial hardening of the Jews cloud your view of men's inherent nature. Men are very much capable of hearing, seeing and repenting when confronted by the powerful gospel truth if they have not been judicially blinded to that truth.

Point is ALL are born"blinded to the truth" being found by god "in Adam" and ONLY IF God opens their hearts and mind can one receive the Gospel message and be saved!

Some might agree with the explanation above regarding hardening, but my issue with the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is that they seem to presume that those being "shown mercy" are the elect who will certainly be saved and those being "hardened" are the non-elect who will certainly be condemned; when in reality those being hardened temporarily may come to faith and be saved (Rom 11:14), and those being shown mercy better not boast least they are cut off (Rom 11:20-21).

Think Apostle paul point here to not presume upon the Grace and mercy of God, as the covenant people of isreal still were lost due to being sinners who willfully rejected Chrsit as the messiah, while the gentiles who did NOT have a relationship with God did find mercy and favor by god granting them grace to believe in jewish messaih!

 

[thomas15]

Can you answer the question? What are the children of God prior to becoming His children?

Answer: Lost

 

[kyredneck]

Can you answer the question? What are the children of God prior to becoming His children?

Lost sheep. Not goats, but sheep that are out of place (with no home or husband). Once they are brought into the kingdom they are 'saved'.

 

[Skandelon]

Lost sheep. Not goats, but sheep that are out of place (with no home or husband). Once they are brought into the kingdom they are 'saved'.

But whose child are they prior to becoming God's child? Are they children of the world? The devil?

If we are all born totally depraved aren't we all born "children of the devil" in that sense? Did Paul say, "1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

It appears he puts everyone in the same boat prior to being saved. They all "followed the ways...of the ruler of the kingdom of the air," prior to becoming children of God, right?

 

[thomas15]

But whose child are they prior to becoming God's child? Are they children of the world? The devil?

Could you explain the necessity of being a child of ________ before accepting Christ?