ris3n's Apologetics Codex

Concept

Hardening Pharaohs Heart

Intro

There are ads on our codex that pay for hosting and keep the codex free. If you can, please consider whitelisting ris3n.com or allowing scripts to support the work.

Sponsored

"God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then punished him for being hard-hearted." The objection treats the Exodus story as if God forced Pharaoh to refuse, then took the lives of Egyptian firstborn children for a choice God himself caused. Read carefully, the text says something different.

The narrative actually splits the hardening into a sequence. Before the plagues start, God tells Moses ahead of time that hardening will happen (this is prediction, not yet action). Then for the first five plagues, the text consistently says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Only after Pharaoh has already chosen this path five times does the text begin to say God hardened Pharaoh's heart. The pattern looks like a man digging in his heels until God lets him fall over the line he already chose to cross.

The Bible also uses three different Hebrew words for hardening, capturing different shades: being firm against pressure, being inflexible, being weighty and unresponsive. This is not the slapdash phrasing the objection assumes. It is a careful portrait of a slow human choice followed by a confirming divine response.

Different Christian traditions read the divine side of the sequence differently. Calvinists emphasize God's sovereign decision; Arminians emphasize God ratifying a free human choice; Molinists fold in middle knowledge; Open Theists shift the picture again. The page presents all four. What none of them say, and what the text does not allow, is that Pharaoh was a robot punished for a script he had no part in writing.

In full

The Exodus narrative repeatedly states that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and also that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The Romans 9 Pauline reflection cites this directly to ground a doctrine of divine sovereignty over salvation: "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). The skeptic-popular literature (e.g. evilbible.com) reads the texts as straightforward divine determinism: God hardens Pharaoh's heart, then punishes Egypt, including the death of Egyptian firstborn children, for what God Himself caused. The hub presents the textual data carefully, surfaces the who-hardens-whose-heart sequence the skeptic literature collapses, lays out the four major Christian responses (Calvinist / Arminian / Molinist / Open Theist), connects to Romans 9 and the broader sovereignty-vs-freedom question, and addresses the moral problem of the Egyptian firstborn judgment that follows.

The textual data, the careful sequence

The Exodus narrative uses three distinct Hebrew verbs for "harden," in three distinct subject-attribution patterns. The skeptic-popular reading collapses these; careful exegesis recovers them.

The three Hebrew verbs

  1. ḥazaq (חזק), "to be / make strong, firm, stout", used 12 times across the Pharaoh narrative.
  2. qashah (קשה), "to be / make hard, severe, stiff", used 4 times.
  3. kabed (כבד), "to be / make heavy, weighty, dull", used 8 times.

These are not synonymous. Each captures a different facet of resistance / obstinacy: ḥazaq (being firm against pressure), qashah (being inflexible / unyielding), kabed (being weighty / unresponsive). The Hebrew text deliberately varies the verb to capture different aspects of Pharaoh's deepening resistance.

The subject-attribution sequence, who hardens?

The 20 hardening references across Ex 4-14 break into three groups:

Group A, God announces hardening will occur (advance prediction, before any specific event):

  • Ex 4:21, "I will harden his heart"
  • Ex 7:3, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" These are advance announcements, not causal acts. The text is establishing what will happen, not yet narrating that it has.

Group B, Pharaoh hardens his own heart (active subject Pharaoh):

  • Ex 7:13, "Pharaoh's heart was hardened" (passive, but in context, no divine subject specified)
  • Ex 7:14, "Pharaoh's heart is stubborn"
  • Ex 7:22, "Pharaoh's heart was hardened" (passive, no divine subject)
  • Ex 8:15, "he hardened his heart" (active, Pharaoh as subject)
  • Ex 8:19, "Pharaoh's heart was hardened" (passive)
  • Ex 8:32, "Pharaoh hardened his heart" (active, Pharaoh as subject)
  • Ex 9:7, "the heart of Pharaoh was hardened" (passive)
  • Ex 9:34, "Pharaoh sinned again, and hardened his heart" (active, Pharaoh as subject)
  • Ex 9:35, "Pharaoh's heart was hardened" (passive)
  • Ex 13:15, "when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go" (Pharaoh as the recalcitrant subject)

Group C, God hardens Pharaoh's heart (active subject God):

  • Ex 9:12, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart"
  • Ex 10:1, "I have hardened his heart"
  • Ex 10:20, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart"
  • Ex 10:27, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart"
  • Ex 11:10, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart"
  • Ex 14:4, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart"
  • Ex 14:8, "the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh"
  • Ex 14:17, "I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians"

The decisive narrative observation

Group B precedes Group C. Pharaoh hardens his own heart first (across the first five plagues), and only after this established pattern of self-hardening does the text shift to God hardening (from the sixth plague onward).

The sequence is roughly:

  • Plagues 1-5 (water-to-blood, frogs, gnats, flies, livestock), Pharaoh hardens his own heart (Ex 8:15, 8:32; cf. 7:13, 7:22, 8:19, 9:7) or Pharaoh's heart is hardened (passive).
  • Plague 6 (boils), first explicit God hardens reference (Ex 9:12).
  • Plagues 7-10, pattern of Pharaoh hardens and God hardens alternating, with the God hardens increasing.
  • Red Sea pursuit, God hardens (Ex 14:4, 14:8, 14:17).

This sequence has been recognized in the rabbinic-Jewish tradition for nearly two millennia. Exodus Rabbah 13:3, Pesikta Rabbati 17, and Maimonides (Hilkhot Teshuvah 6:3) all read the sequence as: Pharaoh's repeated self-hardening of his own heart eventuated in God confirming him in the hardening he had chosen.

This is the patristic-Christian reading too. Augustine (Tractates on John 53:6); John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 16, on Rom 9); and the Reformed-classical tradition all read the Exodus sequence as God's response to Pharaoh's self-chosen hardening, not a first-cause divine determination of Pharaoh's resistance.

Why the objection is sharp despite the sequence

The careful sequence does not fully dissolve the difficulty. Three residual problems:

  1. The advance announcement in Ex 4:21 and 7:3. Before any plague-event has occurred, God tells Moses "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." This appears to commit God to a determining-causal role prior to Pharaoh's first refusal. Even granting that the actual hardening unfolds in self-then-divine sequence, the advance announcement suggests divine foreknowledge-or-determination preceded Pharaoh's choices.
  2. The Romans 9 deployment. Paul cites the hardening sequence (Rom 9:17-18, quoting Ex 9:16) to ground a doctrine of divine sovereignty over mercy and hardening: "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." If Paul's deployment is theologically authoritative, then the Pharaoh case is not just a one-off historical narrative but a paradigm for divine sovereignty in salvation more broadly.
  3. The consequence. The hardening sequence ends with the Tenth Plague, the death of Egyptian firstborn children. Even granting Pharaoh's complete moral responsibility for refusing to release Israel, innocent Egyptian children died as part of the consequence. The God-hardens-Pharaoh-then-kills-Egyptian-children sequence is morally severe regardless of how the hardening-attribution is parsed.

The four major Christian responses

The deeper question, how should we understand divine sovereignty in relation to human freedom and moral responsibility?, has four major Christian-theological answers, each with implications for the Pharaoh narrative.

Response 1, Reformed / Calvinist (compatibilist)

Position: God sovereignly determines all events including human hardening, and humans are fully morally responsible for their choices because moral responsibility is compatible with divine determination. Pharaoh's hardening was both God's act (Ex 9:12; 10:1; 14:4) and Pharaoh's act (Ex 8:15; 8:32; 9:34), the same event under two true descriptions. God's hardening did not bypass Pharaoh's will; it operated through his already-existing rebellious disposition. Pharaoh wanted to oppose God; God ratified and confirmed Pharaoh's chosen direction.

Strengths:

  • Takes the full textual data at face value (both Pharaoh-hardens and God-hardens).
  • Honors Romans 9's apparent affirmation of divine sovereignty over hardening.
  • Has the deepest exegetical tradition in Reformed-classical theology (Calvin, Institutes III.21-24; Beza; Owen, Display of Arminianism; Edwards, Freedom of the Will).
  • Compatibilism is a defensible position in modern philosophy of action (Frankfurt, Fischer, Mele).

Costs:

  • The moral-responsibility claim under determinism is contested philosophically.
  • The Calvinist framing presses harder on the Egyptian-firstborn problem: if God determined Pharaoh's hardening, the firstborn deaths were also part of God's sovereign plan in a stronger sense than other readings allow.
  • Some find the "two-true-descriptions" move philosophically unsatisfying, looks like having it both ways.

Defenders: John Calvin, Institutes III.21-24; Commentary on Romans 9; the Westminster Confession III; Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will (1754); modern Reformed: D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (1981); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology; John Piper, The Justification of God (1983, on Romans 9).

Response 2, Arminian (libertarian)

Position: God foreknew Pharaoh's choices but did not determine them. The Hebrew "God hardens" texts describe God's judicial-confirmation of Pharaoh's chosen self-hardening, God gives Pharaoh over to the disposition Pharaoh has already chosen (cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28, "God gave them over" pattern). The advance announcements (Ex 4:21; 7:3) are based on God's foreknowledge of what Pharaoh would freely choose, not divine predetermination. Pharaoh retained libertarian free will throughout; God's hardening was responsive, not initiating.

Strengths:

  • Honors the Pharaoh-hardens-first sequence in the text.
  • Connects naturally to Romans 1's paradidōmi ("give them over") pattern as the structural analogue for divine hardening.
  • Preserves a libertarian-free-will framework for the moral-responsibility question.
  • Has strong patristic support (Origen, Chrysostom, the Antiochene tradition; many Eastern Orthodox).

Costs:

  • The advance-announcement texts (Ex 4:21; 7:3) require a foreknowledge-based reading that some find strained.
  • Rom 9, particularly v. 18 ("He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires") and v. 21 (potter and clay), is a hard text for libertarian readings; significant exegetical work is required to reconcile.
  • The "God gives them over" reading is consistent but puts more weight on Pharaoh's pre-hardening choices than the text always emphasizes.

Defenders: Jacob Arminius, Disputations on the Free Will of Man; John Wesley, Predestination Calmly Considered (1752); Roger Olson, Arminian Theology (2006); William Lane Craig (in some moods); Thomas Oden; Henry Thiessen.

Response 3, Molinist (middle-knowledge)

Position: God knows by middle knowledge (scientia media) what every possible person would freely do in every possible circumstance. God created and providentially arranged a world in which Pharaoh's free choices would lead to the hardening sequence and the deliverance-of-Israel outcome. God's advance announcements (Ex 4:21; 7:3) reflect God's middle-knowledge: God knew what Pharaoh would freely do given the circumstances God would providentially bring about. God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Group C is the providential-circumstance-arrangement that confirms what Pharaoh's already-chosen disposition does in those circumstances. Libertarian free will is preserved at the human level; comprehensive providence is preserved at the divine level.

Strengths:

  • Handles both advance-announcement texts and the Pharaoh-hardens-first sequence.
  • Provides a middle-position between Calvinist determinism and Arminian foreknowledge.
  • Explains Rom 9 as God's sovereign arrangement of which possible-world to actualize, not as direct determination of human choices.
  • Has strong contemporary-analytic-philosophy footprint (Plantinga; William Lane Craig; Thomas Flint).

Costs:

  • The grounding objection, what grounds God's knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom, is a serious philosophical difficulty (Adams, Hasker, Flint's "soft fact" response is contested).
  • Operates only on a libertarian metaphysics of freedom; combines well with Arminian theology, less well with Reformed.
  • More philosophically sophisticated; harder to articulate pastorally.

Defenders: Luis de Molina (16th c., Concordia); William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God (1987); Thomas Flint, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (1998); Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty (2010).

Response 4, Open Theist

Position: God does not exhaustively foreknow future free human choices, not because God lacks any cognitive capacity, but because future free choices are not yet actual and so are not objects of knowledge. God works providentially with what humans freely choose, responding dynamically. Pharaoh's hardening was Pharaoh's free choice across the early plagues; God's later hardening was God's responsive judicial action. The advance announcements (Ex 4:21; 7:3) are God's intention statements about what God will do in response to Pharaoh's expected choices, not exhaustive foreknowledge.

Strengths:

  • Most fully preserves human libertarian free will.
  • Reads the Pharaoh-hardens-first sequence as the most natural narrative shape.
  • Engages OT texts (Gen 6:6, God grieves; 1 Sam 15:11, God repents; Jer 18, potter image with conditional outcomes) as showing God's interactive-rather-than-determining relationship with creation.

Costs:

  • Substantially weakens the doctrine of divine omniscience as classically understood.
  • Most evangelical / Catholic / Reformed traditions reject Open Theism as crossing a confessional line.
  • The advance-announcement texts in Pharaoh's case can still be read as strong predictions based on character rather than full foreknowledge, but the reading is more contested.

Defenders: Greg Boyd, God of the Possible (2000); Clark Pinnock, The Openness of God (1994); John Sanders, The God Who Risks (1998).

A spread-of-positions table

| Position | Pharaoh hardens first? | Advance-announcement texts? | Romans 9 reading | Moral responsibility | |---|---|---|---|---| | Calvinist / compatibilist | Yes, but God's sovereignty is the deeper-level cause | God's sovereign decree | Direct affirmation of divine sovereignty | Compatible with divine determination | | Arminian / libertarian | Yes, primarily | God's foreknowledge of free choices | Read narrowly (national-not-individual; vocational-not-soteriological) | Requires libertarian free will | | Molinist | Yes, in the actual world | Middle knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom | God arranges possible worlds; humans freely choose within them | Requires libertarian free will | | Open Theist | Yes | God's intention based on character-prediction | Read with non-exhaustive foreknowledge | Requires libertarian free will |

The four positions disagree at the philosophical-theological level on divine knowledge and human freedom; they substantially agree on the moral-responsibility of Pharaoh and the judicial-character of God's hardening as response.

Romans 9, the key NT text

"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.' So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Rom 9:17-18, NASB; Paul quoting Ex 9:16)

Romans 9 is the New Testament's deepest engagement with the hardening question. The text is genuinely hard, and the four positions divide on its interpretation.

The Reformed reading: Rom 9 affirms God's individual-soteriological sovereignty over salvation. God elects some to mercy and others to hardening for His sovereign purposes. The chapter's question "Why does He still find fault?" (v. 19) is anticipated, Paul knows the determinism-objection, and his answer (v. 20-24, the potter-and-clay image) is not "you misunderstand my view" but "who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" The Reformed take this as Paul defending the hard-but-correct view.

The Arminian reading: Rom 9 addresses God's sovereignty over vocational-historical roles (Israel's Pharaoh-pursuer role; the Gentile-inclusion mystery), not individual salvation. Paul's potter-and-clay imagery is about which historical-redemptive role God assigns to which people-group, not about God determining individual eternal destinies. God's mercy and hardening in Rom 9:18 are judicial-historical actions in response to faith and unbelief, not unconditional individual elections.

The Molinist reading: Rom 9 affirms God's sovereign arrangement of redemptive history, including the providential-arrangement of which possible-world to actualize. God's mercy and hardening describe God's actualization-decisions; humans freely respond within God's actualization. The Molinist agrees with the Reformed that Rom 9 affirms divine sovereignty and with the Arminian that human responsibility is libertarian.

The Open-Theist reading: Rom 9's hardening language describes God's judicial-action in response to human choices God anticipated based on character-tracking knowledge.

The codex does not pick a winner among these; see Romans 9.1-29 for the existing rich-passage hub on the chapter, and Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Molinism vs Open Theism for the comparative synthesis.

Engaging the Egyptian-firstborn problem

Even granting any of the four positions on the hardening question, the consequence of the hardening sequence, the death of Egyptian firstborn (Ex 12:29), is a hard text the skeptic literature presses. This is genuinely the God and the Killing of Children cluster (#6 in the planned series); the connection-points:

  • God's judicial-historical action. The Tenth Plague is delayed judgment on Egypt for centuries of slavery oppression of Israel (Gen 15:13-16) and for the Pharaonic Egyptian systematic infanticide of Israelite male babies (Ex 1:15-22, Pharaoh's order to kill Hebrew newborns). The Tenth Plague is retributive symmetry: Pharaoh ordered the deaths of Hebrew children; God brings the death of Egyptian firstborn. This is not gratuitous; it is measure-for-measure judgment in covenantal-historical context.
  • The Passover provision. Ex 12:1-13 establishes the Passover lamb provision: any household, Egyptian or Israelite, could be spared by applying the lamb's blood. The judgment was not ethnic; it was covenantal. Egyptians who joined Israel and applied the blood were spared. Israelites who did not apply the blood were not. The provision is universal in scope; the application is by faith-response.
  • The Christotelic completion. The Passover lamb is prefiguration of Christ (1 Cor 5:7, "Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed"). The pattern of judgment-with-protection-by-substitutionary-blood that the Exodus narrative establishes is the typological-paradigm fulfilled in the cross. God's response to human sin is not just judgment but substitutionary atonement, God Himself bears the judgment in Christ.

The skeptic framing that treats the Tenth Plague as gratuitous-cruelty misses (a) the centuries-of-Pharaonic-infanticide context; (b) the Passover-provision universality; (c) the Christotelic-typology that the Exodus sets up.

What the texts actually do not say

  • They do not say that Pharaoh had no choice. The Pharaoh-hardens-his-own-heart sequence (Group B) is the first established pattern in the text. Pharaoh's repeated free choices preceded any God-hardens reference.
  • They do not say that God's hardening was unjust. The Romans 9:14-15 explicit denial, "Is there injustice with God? May it never be!", is Paul's anticipation of exactly this objection. The justice of God's hardening operates within the framework of His prior provision (Pharaoh had repeated opportunities to repent), His historical-judicial response to centuries of Egyptian oppression, and His universal Passover-provision protecting anyone who would apply the blood.
  • They do not say that the Egyptian firstborn deaths were unconditional. The Passover provision (Ex 12:1-13) was universally available. The judgment fell on those who refused the provision, not on all-Egyptians-by-ethnicity.

How to engage the objection in conversation

For practical apologetic deployment:

  1. Surface the hardening sequence. Don't let the skeptic treat all the hardening references as a single undifferentiated category. The Pharaoh-hardens-first sequence (Group B) is in the text; recovering it changes what the text is doing.
  2. Distinguish the four Christian positions. The Calvinist / Arminian / Molinist / Open Theist disagreement is within Christianity, and each position has resources for the Pharaoh case. Don't be forced to defend a position you don't hold.
  3. Engage Romans 9 carefully. The skeptic often weaponizes Rom 9's "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (v. 18). Show that Paul anticipates the determinism-objection in v. 19 and answers it in v. 20-24, Paul knows what's at stake. The Reformed reading takes Paul's answer as a hard-but-correct commitment to divine sovereignty; the Arminian reads the chapter as about historical-redemptive roles, not individual elections. Either way, Paul is not naïve about the difficulty.
  4. Connect the Tenth Plague to the Pharaonic infanticide and the Passover provision. The skeptic framing that treats the firstborn deaths as gratuitous cruelty omits both the prior Egyptian crime (Ex 1:15-22) and the universal-Passover-provision (Ex 12:1-13).
  5. Distinguish judgment-with-provision from arbitrary judgment. God's pattern across the Exodus narrative is delayed judgment with universal provision: 400+ years of Egyptian oppression before judgment; Passover blood-application available to anyone (Ex 12:38, "a mixed multitude" left Egypt with Israel; some Egyptians were among those who applied the provision). The pattern is not arbitrary cruelty but patient judgment with merciful provision.
  6. Acknowledge the residual difficulty honestly. Even with all the contextual moves, the deepest question, how God's sovereignty over hardening relates to human moral responsibility, and whether God's judicial action against the Egyptian firstborn is justified, is part of the broader theodicy question. The Christian engagement of this is rich and multi-positioned; the skeptic dismissal is too quick.

Connection to scripture

Patristic / scholarly engagement

  • Origen, De Principiis III.1; Commentary on Romans, patristic engagement with the hardening texts; reads them as God's judicial response to Pharaoh's chosen self-hardening.
  • John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 16, Antiochene-Greek-Eastern reading; emphasizes the Pharaoh-hardens-first sequence; God's hardening is judicial confirmation.
  • Augustine, Tractates on John 53; Enchiridion 99-100; Letter 194, develops his mature view of grace and predestination; engages the Pharaoh case directly.
  • Aquinas, ST I-II q. 79 a. 3, addresses the hardening question; distinguishes God's not granting grace from God's causing sin.
  • Calvin, Institutes III.21-24; Commentary on Exodus, Reformed-classic engagement; defends the comprehensive-sovereignty reading.
  • Luis de Molina, Concordia (1588), develops middle-knowledge framework that handles the hardening question.
  • Jacob Arminius, Disputations on the Free Will of Man (1610), develops the Arminian foreknowledge-based reading.
  • Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will (1754), major Reformed compatibilist defense.
  • Modern Reformed: D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (1981); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology; John Piper, The Justification of God (1983).
  • Modern Arminian: Roger Olson, Arminian Theology (2006); Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity; ris3n Walls.
  • Modern Molinist: Luis Molina (translated by Alfred Freddoso, 1988); William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God (1987); Thomas Flint, Divine Providence (1998); Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty (2010).
  • Modern Open Theist: Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God (1994); Greg Boyd, God of the Possible (2000); John Sanders, The God Who Risks (1998).
  • Jewish-tradition: Exodus Rabbah 13:3; Maimonides, Hilkhot Teshuvah 6:3; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities.
  • Skeptic-engagement: Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? (2011), ch. 9; Christopher Wright, The God I Don't Understand (2008), ch. 4.

Suggested missing concepts (flagged for future builds)

  • Compatibilism, the philosophical position that free will and determinism are compatible; foundational for Reformed theology of hardening. The codex has Hard Determinism and Libertarian Free Will but compatibilism is treated only in passing.
  • Romans 9, Sovereignty and Election, concept hub on the chapter's exegesis; the existing Romans 9.1-29 is a passage rich-hub but a concept hub on the doctrine of election as Paul develops it would be valuable.
  • Counterfactuals of Freedom, middle-knowledge concept; the philosophical machinery the Molinist position depends on. Not currently hub'd.
  • Plagues of Egypt, concept hub on the ten plagues as covenantal-judicial-historical pattern. Touches multiple hubs (this one, God and the Killing of Children) but isn't hub'd.
  • Romans 1, Giving Them Over, the paradidōmi pattern Paul uses for divine-judicial-action that's structurally analogous to the OT hardening pattern. Would deepen the present hub.
  • Foreknowledge vs Causation already exists, could be extended with the hardening-question application.

See also