What does Romans 9:18 mean?

[Jarthur001]

We've done the whole Romans 9-11 thing before, and I have no desire to do it again. I was answering the OP.

Adame Clark summarizes verse 18 well to which I agree...

Verse 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will] This is the apostle's conclusion from the facts already laid down: that God, according to his own will and wisdom, in perfectrighteousness, bestows mercy; that is to say, his blessings upon one part of mankind, (the Jews of old, and the Gentiles of the present time,) while he suffers another part (the Egyptians of old, and the Jews of the present day) to go on in the abuse of his goodness and forbearance, hardening themselves in sin, till he brings upon them a most just and exemplary punishment, unless this be prevented by their deep repentance and general return to God through Jesus the promised, the real Messiah.

I'm sure he did. Therefore I rest my case.

 

[webdog]

...if you had a case to rest on

 

[PK]

Romans 9:18 "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."?

This leads me to believe that sometimes God supersedes a person’s free will as he did with Pharaoh and exercises his divine sovereignty to prevent them from softening and accepting his mercy.

How should I interpret this scripture?

The words "raised thee up" do not mean from birth or to the throne. (Exodus 9:16) They just mean that God had kept him alive through the proceeding plague so he could be made an object lesson to ALL men. Please show me the passage of scripture that says that God had chosen Pharaoh to go to hell. God hardened his heart AFTER Moses said, "Let my people go" and Pharaoh said, "Who is God that I should obey Him?"

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Jacob is the positive example of God’s special intervention in the life of one man to insure His purpose. Pharaoh is the negative example.


It is clear from the Hebrew that God’s interaction with Pharaoh through Moses is the precedent for Pharaoh’s hardened heart, but it was Pharaoh that hardened his own heart. He refused to repent of unbelief and the trust he had in his false gods and trust in the God of Israel. That unwillingness to repent with each new plague only hardened his heart further and further as the ordeal progressed. The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament (Volume I by Harris, Archer and Waltke; Moody Press) states regarding the Hebrew word chazaq (khaw-zak’), translated “hardened” in Exodus 12:12:

“The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is an old problem, one that is more theological than linguistic. The verb hazag is used twelve times in the narrative (Ex 4-14), mostly with the Lord as the agent (“Pharaoh’s heart was hardened”). Also, the verb kabed is used five times, both with the Lord as the agent, with Pharaoh as the agent, and in the passive sense. The verb qasha is used once with the Lord as the agent. There is no discernable difference here in the usage of these words. It is clear that Pharaoh was an unrepentant sinner at the start (chapter 5). It is perhaps enough to point this out and remark that all of God’s hardening of an obstinate sinner was judicial and done that God’s deliverance should be the more memorable. And this, too, was in God’s plan (Ex 9:16), though it is also inexplicably true that Pharaoh sinned freely and was therefore terribly guilty (cf. Acts 4:25-28).” (Statement by R. L. Harris)
​

God’s plagues were primarily against the idols of Egypt in proving them false. The Egyptian Pharaohs believed they were offspring of their gods. Therefore, for Pharaoh to accept the God of Israel as the only God, he would have to reject his own claim to deity and his right/authority to hold the position of Pharaoh. He had a lot of incentive to reject the God of Israel. We can find a parallel and comparison in Romans 1:19-32 to what took place in God’s dealing with Pharaoh in that God deals similarly with all unbelievers as they resist His revelation of Himself and as they refuse to repent of their unbelief. It was Pharaoh’s own unbelief and refusal to repent that hardened his heart. To reject God in unbelief is actually an act of self-deification (just like Pharaoh).

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (Romans 1:22-28; compare Romans 2:4-5).​

 

[Jarthur001]

Jacob is the positive example of God’s special intervention in the life of one man to insure His purpose. Pharaoh is the negative example.


It is clear from the Hebrew that God’s interaction with Pharaoh through Moses is the precedent for Pharaoh’s hardened heart, but it was Pharaoh that hardened his own heart. He refused to repent of unbelief and the trust he had in his false gods and trust in the God of Israel. That unwillingness to repent with each new plague only hardened his heart further and further as the ordeal progressed. The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament (Volume I by Harris, Archer and Waltke; Moody Press) states regarding the Hebrew word chazaq (khaw-zak’), translated “hardened” in Exodus 12:12:

“The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is an old problem, one that is more theological than linguistic. The verb hazag is used twelve times in the narrative (Ex 4-14), mostly with the Lord as the agent (“Pharaoh’s heart was hardened”). Also, the verb kabed is used five times, both with the Lord as the agent, with Pharaoh as the agent, and in the passive sense. The verb qasha is used once with the Lord as the agent. There is no discernable difference here in the usage of these words. It is clear that Pharaoh was an unrepentant sinner at the start (chapter 5). It is perhaps enough to point this out and remark that all of God’s hardening of an obstinate sinner was judicial and done that God’s deliverance should be the more memorable. And this, too, was in God’s plan (Ex 9:16), though it is also inexplicably true that Pharaoh sinned freely and was therefore terribly guilty (cf. Acts 4:25-28).” (Statement by R. L. Harris)
​

God’s plagues were primarily against the idols of Egypt in proving them false. The Egyptian Pharaohs believed they were offspring of their gods. Therefore, for Pharaoh to accept the God of Israel as the only God, he would have to reject his own claim to deity and his right/authority to hold the position of Pharaoh. He had a lot of incentive to reject the God of Israel. We can find a parallel and comparison in Romans 1:19-32 to what took place in God’s dealing with Pharaoh in that God deals similarly with all unbelievers as they resist His revelation of Himself and as they refuse to repent of their unbelief. It was Pharaoh’s own unbelief and refusal to repent that hardened his heart. To reject God in unbelief is actually an act of self-deification (just like Pharaoh).

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (Romans 1:22-28; compare Romans 2:4-5).​

Dr. L.T. Ketchum,

Man I tell you. The more I read your work the more I see you are not honest. Not honest with the text nor with yourself and others. Like this this statement below…

Jacob is the positive example of God’s special intervention in the life of one man to insure His purpose. Pharaoh is the negative example.

I can understand why you would say this, but the fact is, this is a very small view of God. Job is but a good example of how you limit God with this view above. Chapter 42 of Job is powerful.

Notice this verse....

And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

I can recall reading and understanding this for the 1st time. I had read Job many times before and had even study it well. This time I was on my 3rd study through Job and when I read this verse I knew I had missed the meaning of the book. It hit me like a ton of bricks. Why was God so angry with Eliphaz? God didn’t really answer Job in the chapters just before this other then to say “who are you Job to question me?”. But God was very angry at Eliphaz. Why? What had Eliphaz said that was so bad? And this is what hit me. They had talked about God and said things that were not right. Now this small post would not allow us to prove all of my point. You may want to read what was said by Eliphaz and know as you read it, God did not like what Eliphaz was saying.

The reason I bring this up, is you keep doing about the same thing as you look at the Bible. You see God as you want Him to be. You do not take the Bible for its own words. It is as if you are ashamed of the God you find in the Bible and you find you must change it to fit how you view God. This my brother, is not how you read the Bible.

You said...

It is clear from the Hebrew that God’s interaction with Pharaoh through Moses is the precedent for Pharaoh’s hardened heart, but it was Pharaoh that hardened his own heart.

What is really clear is you pass over verses that clearly state it is GOD that hardens Pharaohs heart. You here find you must repaint God as how you see Him. Look the Bible states both. Do not forget that. Do not run from it. Do not change the meaning. If you understand sin and how it works with Gods will, you will also see how both are true.

You said...

It is perhaps enough to point this out and remark that all of God’s hardening of an obstinate sinner was judicial and done that God’s deliverance should be the more memorable.

Again you limit God. Romans 9 makes a point that you need to see. The point being that God can do as He pleases. In other words there is no need for you to give reason why God did what He did. God needs no reason. Here the point you make is somewhat true, I feel you only see one side of it. There is more to it then just what you state. The fact is, as God works among man, one event effects many men, but not always in the same way. This is true in punishment and victory. The Red Sea is but one story. God saved the Jewish nation by giving Egypt as a ransom. In other words, they died so that Gods people could live. God could have chosen Egypt and given the victory to them which in turn would have cost the lives of the Jewish nation.

Pharaoh did not just play into Gods plan He was part of Gods plan. When God made Pharaoh, God knew full well that Pharaoh would sin and act as he did toward Gods people. It was God that placed Pharaoh in his chair and it was God that hardened Pharaoh's heart. Yet Pharaoh hardened His own heart with choices.

God uses sins of men to bring glory to Him. This is as much part of God as Gods holiness.

 

[Jarthur001]

The words "raised thee up" do not mean from birth or to the throne. (Exodus 9:16) They just mean that God had kept him alive through the proceeding plague so he could be made an object lesson to ALL men. Please show me the passage of scripture that says that God had chosen Pharaoh to go to hell. God hardened his heart AFTER Moses said, "Let my people go" and Pharaoh said, "Who is God that I should obey Him?"

Pk,

You are part way right on this. However, it not only means God keeps him alive though this, it means more this is the reason why he has life at all. In other words, for this moment in time God has gave you life so that by you denying my people their freedom, I will show the world my power and over come your little power that I gave you.

Please show me the passage of scripture that says that God had chosen Pharaoh to go to hell.

A poor understanding of election.

JOHN 3...

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Therefore election.

All of us are on our way to hell. God did not to Pharaoh to put him on a road to hell. He was on that road when he was born. God did not chose to save Pharaoh but rather chose another nation. yet God chose to us Pharaoh sin to bring glory to Him.

You said...

God hardened his heart AFTER Moses said

Yes. But this does not help your case. God does not save from works. If Pharaoh had been a good little king, would that have saved him? Was Peter heart hardened when he denied Christ...not once...but 3 times? Was Paul hardened by killing others? Sin does not always harden a heart. But at times it does. At times people deep in sin and have been in sin for years are saved. Why?

PK..at some point you may need to believe the Bible and not mans logic that you have been told.

 

[webdog]

Man I tell you. The more I read your work the more I see you are not honest. Not honest with the text nor with yourself and others. Like this this statement below…

I thought calling people liars on the BB was a violation of rules

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

There is no one so blind as he who will not see!

 

[Jarthur001]

I thought calling people liars on the BB was a violation of rules

I'm sure if you feel that this is a wrong, you have reported it. Best of luck for ya.

BTW...did you notice this...

Not honest with the text nor with yourself and others. Like this this statement below…

Oh shoot....just when you thought you had another one kicked off. Sorry about that

However if this be the case I have a few post of your own I need to show them.

 

[Jarthur001]

There is no one so blind as he who will not see!

or one that changes the context to fit their needs.

Notice no reply to the post...just attacks.

Class .....

 

[webdog]

I'm sure if you feel that this is a wrong, you have reported it. Best of luck for ya.

BTW...did you notice this...



Oh shoot....just when you thought you had another one kicked off. Sorry about that

However if this be the case I have a few post of your own I need to show them.

FYI, I did not report it. It was a question.

If I recall, if it weren't for me PM'ing a moderator, you would still be posting in the other christian denominations forum due to the fact you didn't think you could post in a baptist only section because of the lack of "baptist" in your churches name. That was back in the day when you were bearable to interact with...minus the enoromous attitude.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I thought calling people liars on the BB was a violation of rules

Not so web. Lou called me a liar... it was reported and ignored. Lou likes to accuse others of getting emotional and upset...... but he fails to look in the mirror. Lou does not use the word dishonest, but rather outright calls other brothers in Christ a liar.
So it would seem to me that it is ok to call other brothers and sisters a liar on this BB.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

or one that changes the context to fit their needs.

Notice no reply to the post...just attacks.

Class .....

I do not want to fight with you.

I do not know you.

You hide behind avatar anonymity and make an ad hominem attack on my character by calling me dishonest and accusing me of lacking of exegetical integrity.

Many Pastors hide behind avatar anonymity in these forums because if their congregations actually knew what they believed, they would be asked to leave. I know of a number of pastors who do so. Do you think that manifests integrity?

I made a general statement, not necessarily directed to any post, and you assumed I was referring to you, exposing the fact that the purpose of your post was to pick a fight.

Then, you accuse me of attacking you. That is what is known as hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is that Calvinist cannot accept the plain understanding of Romans 9:18 because they believe that God has chosen a few to be saved and has relegated the rest of humanity to hopeless reprobation. They then interpret every Scripture according to that presupposition. Romans 1:22-28 and Romans 2:4-5 are in fact a Scriptural explanation of God’s response to progressive unbelief similar to the situation with Pharaoh.

Reprobation is the final outcome of the progression in unbelief. Calvinists want us to believe (by supposition and by the imposition of the supposition on every text) that the non-elect are born reprobate (cast away and hopelessly lost). That is a dark side of Calvinism many Calvinist just do not want to talk about.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Calvinists want us to believe (by supposition and by the imposition of the supposition on every text) that the non-elect are born reprobate (cast away and hopelessly lost).

And what would you have us to believe? Prevenient grace in the wesleyan tradition? Why don't you tell us>?

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

And what would you have us to believe? Prevenient grace in the wesleyan tradition? Why don't you tell us>?

If it your position, why don't you explain it to us. If I do so (because I am NOT a Calvinist), I will simply be accused of not understanding Calvinism.

Why not start another thread on The Hopeless Reprobation of the Non-Elect. Explain it in real detail and give your proof texts for it.

 

[reformedbeliever]

If it your position, why don't you explain it to us. If I do so (because I am NOT a Calvinist), I will simply be accused of not understanding Calvinism.

Why not start another thread on The Hopeless Reprobation of the Non-Elect. Explain it in real detail and give your proof texts for it.

I am not the one who is implying it is incorrect. You are. The burden of proof is upon yourself. I never said it was my position either. I simply asked what position you would have one to believe, since you state that this postion is incorrect. Or would you like to dance? Thank you good doctor.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I see the good doctor left. I hope he comes back to tell us what he believes about prevenient grace. I'm tired of dancing...... and he does not do the two step very well.......... I've got sore toes to prove it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jarthur001]

I do not want to fight with you.

I do not know you.

You hide behind avatar anonymity and make an ad hominem attack on my character by calling me dishonest and accusing me of lacking of exegetical integrity.

Many Pastors hide behind avatar anonymity in these forums because if their congregations actually knew what they believed, they would be asked to leave. I know of a number of pastors who do so. Do you think that manifests integrity?

I made a general statement, not necessarily directed to any post, and you assumed I was referring to you, exposing the fact that the purpose of your post was to pick a fight.

Then, you accuse me of attacking you. That is what is known as hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is that Calvinist cannot accept the plain understanding of Romans 9:18 because they believe that God has chosen a few to be saved and has relegated the rest of humanity to hopeless reprobation. They then interpret every Scripture according to that presupposition. Romans 1:22-28 and Romans 2:4-5 are in fact a Scriptural explanation of God’s response to progressive unbelief similar to the situation with Pharaoh.

Reprobation is the final outcome of the progression in unbelief. Calvinists want us to believe (by supposition and by the imposition of the supposition on every text) that the non-elect are born reprobate (cast away and hopelessly lost). That is a dark side of Calvinism many Calvinist just do not want to talk about.

Get over it brother.

I said you were not honest with the text. I proved that. If you feel I was wrong you need to prove it. That is what we do in debates.

You said...

The fact of the matter is that Calvinist cannot accept the plain understanding of Romans 9:18 because they believe that God has chosen a few to be saved and has relegated the rest of humanity to hopeless reprobation. They then interpret every Scripture according to that presupposition. Romans 1:22-28 and Romans 2:4-5 are in fact a Scriptural explanation of God’s response to progressive unbelief similar to the situation with Pharaoh.

yes I know this is what you believe, however i show plain as day where you are WRONG.

To this hour you have not overcome the points, therefore you talk about other things.
Go for it..I can handly it.

You said...

Reprobation is the final outcome of the progression in unbelief. Calvinists want us to believe (by supposition and by the imposition of the supposition on every text) that the non-elect are born reprobate (cast away and hopelessly lost). That is a dark side of Calvinism many Calvinist just do not want to talk about.

Fluff and wasted words. I listen to the Bible. Try to back your logic with the Bible and you may have something DOC

 

[Jarthur001]

If it your position, why don't you explain it to us. If I do so (because I am NOT a Calvinist), I will simply be accused of not understanding Calvinism.

Why not start another thread on The Hopeless Reprobation of the Non-Elect. Explain it in real detail and give your proof texts for it.

Hello Doc,

Please don't get mad because all your theories were shown with full Bible support to have been based on your ideas and not the Bible. Maybe you just forgot to include your verses that prove your thoughts. Please fill free to overcome the pure and simple yet mounds of evidence that is stacked up proving your logic to be wrong. This is an open public debate where we welcome all to post, as long as it falls within the rules. The Bible is within those rules.

I'm sure little oh me is not the 1st guy that has pointed to error in you're thinking, so surely you have more then those PDFs that you want others to link to. You must have had these errors shown to you by a pastor, of theologian of some degree in the past. Therefore I must think you have something to say, other then to get mad.

Look....just reply to what was said...

That would be a good start.

 

[J.D.]

We've done the whole Romans 9-11 thing before, and I have no desire to do it again. I was answering the OP.

Adame Clark summarizes verse 18 well to which I agree...

Verse 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will] This is the apostle's conclusion from the facts already laid down: that God, according to his own will and wisdom, in perfectrighteousness, bestows mercy; that is to say, his blessings upon one part of mankind, (the Jews of old, and the Gentiles of the present time,) while he suffers another part (the Egyptians of old, and the Jews of the present day) to go on in the abuse of his goodness and forbearance, hardening themselves in sin, till he brings upon them a most just and exemplary punishment, unless this be prevented by their deep repentance and general return to God through Jesus the promised, the real Messiah.

Clark's position seems to be that God will harden whom He will harden, unles they repent. Clark interjects the qualifier, which is neither implied nor present in the text. This is classic eisogesis.