Silent Acorns

When I was a child, even though our family was mostly secular, I saw the 10 Commandments and I was familiar with the general narrative of the Exodus story. I even watched that animated version a few years back, even though I've considered myself to be an atheist for almost 20 years. I always accepted the story as a morality tale about an cruel pharaoh who allowed his great nation to be destroyed rather than lose his slaves.

So I was rather taken aback when I actually read the book of Exodus and found that this is not the case at all. Rather, it is a tale about the reemergence of an egotistical god who manipulates the Pharaoh, who was generally willing to let the Hebrews go, just to show how powerfull he is.

There are 22 references in Exodus (KJV) to hardening of the Pharaoh's heart. 11 times it explicitly says that God deliberately hardened Phaaoh's heart:

Only three times does the Pharaoh harden his own heart (the other 8 only say that his heart hardened, not how or why).

Now, I don't remember either of the movies well enough to be sure that this wasn't mentioned, but I do remember that the emphasis was always on the wickedness of the pharoah, not the desire of God to lay the groundwork for a killing spree. I think Christains should be horrified by this story, but clearly they're not.

Is the popular portrayal of the Exodus story an example of people ingnoring aspects of the Bible they don't like, or is it because Christians (including the movie makers) have been accepting the sanitized version, without ever actually reading the Bible, for so long that they just don't know what it actually says?

Vinnie

I actually find the exodus STORY useful for illustrating bondage and liberation. I don't read it at all like you suggest. To me it is a story about how God saves his people from bondage. As a factual account where all those details are literally true, well, things like the tenth plague make me want to vomit.

Vinnie

Old Man

Neither. I can't speak for "Christians" in general, because I know in the good old USA you have some wierd ones whom I would not in a million years regard as having any similarity to Christ at all.

Essentially the issue with Pharoah was that he was a tyrant (as you would expect) and an unbeliever. When Moses requested of him, and God punished him, Pharoah had two responses. Show mercy to the Israelites (unharden heart), or refuse mercy (harden heart).

Pharoah chose to harden his heart. Although it says God "hardened" Pharoah's heart, this is actually shorthand for God "acting in such a way" as to cause Pharoah to harden his own heart. Its like a natural, inevitable thing, for an unbeliever. If you choose not to believe, you harden your heart. God knew Pharoah did not believe, so he sent him signs and wonders, which God knew Pharoah would ignore, and so would (inevitably) cause him to harden his heart.

In the same way Christ can also be said to harden the hearts of many people. You either accept him (and soften your heart), or reject him (and harden your heart). There are only two options, and if you are not prepared to believe (and God knows who is and who isn't), then the path you will follow is predictable.

However, there is another aspect. The very ability to believe in God is an act of mercy from God. Pharoah did not receive God's mercy at that time, because of his inexcusable tyranny against the Israelites. That is why when the mercy of God comes your way, you must take it, because it might not come your way again.

As Paul says:

Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

doc58

Old Man,
Back when I believed like you did, I used the same argument you did. However, rewriting scripture to fit it how you want to doesn't work. God, in inspiring writers to write like he wanted to had use of all sorts of words. He could have said "God allowed Pharoahs heart to harden" but He didn't, he chose to say, "God hardened Pharoahs heart". It couldn't be much clearer. Then in Romans he belabors the point. It says in effect, "God hardens who he wants to for whatever reason he wants to so tough luck, it is none of your business."
Of course Christians don't like this explanantion because it makes God out to be an SOB which is exactly the way the Bible presents him.

Mageth

Pharoah chose to harden his heart. Although it says God "hardened" Pharoah's heart, this is actually shorthand for God "acting in such a way" as to cause Pharoah to harden his own heart.

Bollocks. IIRC, the word used is better translated as "strengthen" or "embolden" rather than "harden." Look at some relevant scriptures:

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'When thou goest back into Egypt, see that thou do before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in thy hand; but I will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3 (YHWH speaking): And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.

And Exodus explicitly says:
Exodus 9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

There's nothing in there to lend credence to the theory that god acted in such a way that caused Pharaoh to harden his own heart. It clearly states that God hardened his heart. To say otherwise is tantamount to questioing the truthfulness of God's own purported words to Moses.

Further, from Romans:

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Old Man

That's not incompatible with what I said about Pharoah hardening his own heart. As anther poster pointed out, in some places it says Pharoah hardened his heart, Exd 8:32, Exd 8:15, Exd 9:34 and in others that God did it: Exd 10:20, Exd 10:1, Exd 9:12.

In so far as God is sovereign, everything can be ascribed to God, because it happens according to God's foreknowledge, set plan and purpose. That is the "God viewpoint" (beloved of Calvinists). According to this viewpoint "God hardened Pharoah's heart".

But there is also the human viewpoint, which is not invalid. The human viewpoint states that Pharoah hardened his own heart, through his refusal to believe.

Both viewpoints are valid and not contradictory. You just need to appreciate which viewpoint goes with which sentiment.

But there is a problem with the God viewpoint which you can easily fall into. You can quickly move from "God hardened Pharoah's heart" to "God causes sin" and "If God causes sin, why does he blame sinners?". The fact is that God never underwrote the culpability of Pharoah's sin. So it must always have been Pharoah's autonomous decision to sin. So pharoah sinned and was held culpable for it, and it was according to God's purpose.

You can set a chain of events in motion, and the end result may be something quite far removed from the originator of the chain. But it is equally as valid to say the originator of the chain of events caused the thing to happen, as it is to say the event at the end of the chain caused the thing to happen. Both are true.

Mageth

The human viewpoint states that Pharoah hardened his own heart, through his refusal to believe.

That's just it - this is your human viewpoint, cooked up in an attempt to make what the bible plainly says ("I will harden his heart") fit with your particular theology.

So one is faced with the dilemma of accepting what god himself is recorded to have clearly said ("I will harden his heart") or in accepting the "human" interpretation of what he is recorded to have said.

So - should one accept god's words at face value or accept human interpretations of god's words?

And if there is "a problem with the God viewpoint which you can easily fall into", is there not a far bigger problem with the notion that god's plain words are to be interpreted, and added to, (e.g. changing "I will harden his heart" into "I will act in such a way as to cause pharaoh to harden his own heart", something that god never said, and that god, I assume, was perfectly capable of saying if that's what he intended to do, and indeed should have said if this is such a critical theological point that otherwise would be open to human interpretation) to fit a theological model? Does that not open up god's words up to all sorts of false human interpretations and "heresies"?

By golly, perhaps that explains the tens of thousands of different xian sects we've seen over the past 2000 years.

BadBadBad

Old Man,

This is the second time this week you've penciled in words that aren't there. In my thread on this same subject you said:

Today you're adding in "I will act in such a way as to cause pharaoh to harden his own heart." Earlier this week you added "in that God knows that is what their end will be" Please, let's just stick with what the Bible says until God re-writes it to say what you want!

Please, read these passages again, and using only the words that are there, tell us again how this is not a contradiction between Free Will and pre-determination. Don't forget Ex 9:27 where Pharaoh excercises free will to acknowledge his "sin" and the righteousnous of God. Don't forget Ex 12:30-31 where Pharoah excercises free will to let the Israelites go, but dang it, God hardens his heart again.

Even if we allow you to pencil in your words, how does God "causing" Pharaoh to harden his own heart not eliminate Pharaoh's "Free" Will? It's like I have a choice between chocolate and vanila ice cream, but an omnipotent God "causes" me to choose chocolate. Normally, I choose vanilla, but today, that God "causing" thing "caused" me to choose chocolate. How does that work any way? Is that like a lightning bolt from God saying choose chocolate? How is that Free Will? How is that not exactly the same as God hardening my heart against vanilla?

While we're at it, let's not forget the next scene in Exodus with the parting of the Red Sea and all. Tell us all again how that's not total nonsense, and how that doesn't wipe out any credibility for the whole book of Exodus.

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Ex 7:3-5
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

Exodus 10:1-2
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD.

BadBadBad

I couldn't pass this up either. In my thread, there was a hyperlink to a Calvinist sermon on the subject. In the sermon, I pointed out the exact point where he inserted this same exact double speak. Now here you go. You keep on using the word "cause." God "causes." Then you say "So it must always have been Pharoah's autonomous decision to sin" There's your double speak. God "causes," but Pharaoh has autonomy. You have equated two words that are actually opposite in meaning, and that's just double speak.

cause: to effect by command, authority, or force
autonomy: self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
purpose: Synonym intentional
intentional: done by intention or design : INTENDED

gilly54

According to this article, some Biblical archeologists say the Exodus never happened. A recent National Geographic documentary on who built the pyramids, showed that it was Egyptians that built them, not Hebrew slaves,and that the Hebrews never left their little area of Mesopotamia.