Was Pharaoh under the sovereign control of God?

[shnarkle]

Did God raise up Pharaoh for the wrong purpose, or was magnifying his own glory a sufficient purpose for raising up Pharaoh? (Romans 9:17)

How is is possible for Pharaoh to have repented and allowed Israel to depart in peace, if he was raised up for this purpose?

God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart that he might judge e.g. "lay his hand upon" Egypt. Could Pharaoh have overcome God's hardening of his heart? How?

The king's heart is in the hands of the LORD, as the rivers of water, he turns it whithersoever he will Proverbs 21:1

There is no question that Pharaoh hardened his own heart as is indicated in Ex. 8:15,32. Pharaoh is a responsible moral agent, but this doesn't answer the question of whether or not it was possible for Pharaoh to soften his own heart and repent despite God's will?

If Pharoah had repented of his sins and turned Israel free, how could God's word have been fulfilled?

Is it possible for sinful or even righteous man to thwart God's declared intent?

If he did this to Pharaoh, why wouldn't he do it to the rest of rebellious humanity?

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Here are a few passages to see if Pharaoh hardened his own heart or if God hardened Pharaoh's heart. have a look for yourself.....

Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Exodus 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Exodus 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

To harden one's own heart or someone else's heart is to firm up their resolve, their commitment to a decision. What was Pharaoh's resolve? To stop the Israelites leaving by killing them if necessary.

Why did his resolve weaken? He became afraid of YHWH with every new plague.

How did YHWH firm up his resolve? That HE removed Pharoah's fear of GODly retribution which allowed him to go forth with a renewed commitment against YHWH's people is the most obvious probability...but any suggestion HE forced Pharaoh to change his mind and attack the Israelites is a blatant misuse of the language and the tenor of the story.

RESPONSE: The Exodus story is now recognized as fictional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

"The Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites.[1][a] Spread over the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, it tells of the enslavement that befell the children of Israel in Egypt, their liberation through the hand of Yahweh and the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to borders of Canaan, the land their God has given them.[2] Its message is that Israel was delivered from slavery by Yahweh and therefore belongs to him through the Mosaic covenant, the terms of which are that Yahweh will protect his chosen people for all time, so long as they will keep his laws and worship only him"

"The traditions behind the Exodus story can be traced in the writings of the 8th-century BCE prophets, beyond which their history is obscured by centuries of transmission.[5][6] No historical basis for the biblical Exodus story exists;[7] instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.[8]"

Of course, fundamentalists can't accept these facts but historians and archaeologists do.

[JehovahsWitness]

...you should rethink your "understanding" and go by the plain meaning of the words used.

Okay, well I've just rethought my understanding and come to the conclusion that it's more likely to be correct than what you seem to be proposing. You seem to be taking a quite literal reading; Jehovah's Witnesses are not bible literalists. If you are congratulations, but I believe such a simplistic approach will result in missing much of what the writer intended to convey.

We will I'm afraid have to agree to disagree on that point,

Regards,


JW

[polonius]

...you should rethink your "understanding" and go by the plain meaning of the words used.

Okay, well I've just rethought my understanding and come to the conclusion that it's more likely to be correct than what you seem to be proposing. You seem to be taking a quite literal reading; Jehovah's Witnesses are not bible literalists. If you are congratulations, but I believe such a simplistic approach will result in missing much of what the writer intended to convey.

We will I'm afraid have to agree to disagree on that point,

Regards,


JW

RESPONSE: That's fine. As long as you recognize that what the writers intended to covey is just a legend not something that actually happened, in which case it would be history.

[twobitsworth]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I doubt if JW will respond to your question. The passage is difficult. Like God hardening Pharaoh's heart passages, the wording is crystal clear......but the meaning of those words is unacceptable to all but the most callous person.

This is the direct connection to the opening post. What do we do with bible passages we do not agree with, but which are unambiguous in their meaning??

Well, by golly, the JWs will go to extreme lengths to neuter the Word. In your example, "slay utterly" must be dealt with. We have a way forward on our mission to neuter. First , one needs to understand that women, maids, children are distractions for men in fulfilling their responsibilities to God. Paul, in the NT testifies of this repeatedly. A man, in his earnest desire to do God's Will, must slay utterly his tendency to be distracted from his Grand Calling. See? Nothing to do with killing anymore.

There are myriad ways to neuter a passage you don't like.

[brianbbs67]

RESPONSE: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

Do you really believe that this biblical teaching is divine guidance?

Can you explain the relevance of this comment to the OP? I was under the impression it was inviting an analysis of Romans 9.

I have no desire to deraille the thread.


JW

RESPONSE: Then don't. The topic is in the thread's title.

Was Pharaoh under the sovereign control of God?

The answer is that the entire story is fictional. The first seven book of the Bible are just a story written apparently between 800 and 600 BC probably during the Babylonian Captivity.

From the on-line JPost

“The recent film Exodus, Gods and Kings had Ramesses the Great as the step-brother of Moses and the pharaoh of the Exodus. But there is nothing in the Egyptian records linking Ramesses to the Exodus, and indeed nothing at all in the records about the Israelites and their slavery, nothing about their escape into the Sinai after the plagues, nothing about the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea – nothing. So it is embarrassing for archaeologists to be asked who the pharaoh of the Exodus was. But it is a question that comes up every year before Passover, when we Jews celebrate our escape from Egyptian slavery into freedom.�

I believe Pharoah had a choice. He just chose wrongly. And stubbornly. As an aside, there was a Pharoah contemporary with the Exodus story, that had sons named Amose, Tamose, and Kamose. (Amuzz, Tamuzz, Kamuzz) Tamose is considered by some to be the first born lost on passover.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I doubt if JW will respond to your question. The passage is difficult. Like God hardening Pharaoh's heart passages, the wording is crystal clear......but the meaning of those words is unacceptable to all but the most callous person.

This is the direct connection to the opening post. What do we do with bible passages we do not agree with, but which are unambiguous in their meaning??

Well, by golly, the JWs will go to extreme lengths to neuter the Word. In your example, "slay utterly" must be dealt with. We have a way forward on our mission to neuter. First , one needs to understand that women, maids, children are distractions for men in fulfilling their responsibilities to God. Paul, in the NT testifies of this repeatedly. A man, in his earnest desire to do God's Will, must slay utterly his tendency to be distracted from his Grand Calling. See? Nothing to do with killing anymore.

There are myriad ways to neuter a passage you don't like.

We should never try to "neuter" a passage we don't like. Soloman's son laid this out perfectly for us. "There is a way that seems right to man, which leads straight unto death." And also the gem of "There is nothing new under the sun". Everything we argue today and every ill of the world, were and have been and will be ever present till this world passes.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 25 by brianbbs67]

I believe Pharoah had a choice. He just chose wrongly.[quote]

This seems to be a common opinion, but it makes no sense to Paul's doctrine of election especially with regards to Romans 9. There is no reason for Paul to point out that it is not by "will or effort", or even more so to point out that vessels fitted for destruction or dishonor are "predestined" if it is left up to the vessels themselves. There is no point in Paul defending his position that God is righteous in his power over the clay, if it is up to the clay to decide their own fate. His argument collapses, or rather you argument collapses in light of Paul's argument.

Ultimately, the problem isn't with God, but our insistence that we be able to decide what is right and what is wrong when we're ignorant of the truth to begin with. Free will is useless in a state of ignorance. One can't choose what they are ignorant of.

[JehovahsWitness]

We should never try to "neuter" a passage we don't like.

There is nothing I don't like on the bible, there are narratives that show the depravity of wickedness and the sad consequence of sin, and those attitudes and actions I of course find regrettable. But even in that, if a narrative is true there is positivity in it, if only to know what not do do, which is I believe the case for everything in the bible.

There is certainly no need to "neuter" the perfect word of God. We (Jehovah's Witness) believe all that comes from God is perfect.


JW

[twobitsworth]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Right! The bible says two things about Pharaoh. in some passages Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Bible says so. In others God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Bible says that also.

When the bible says Pharaoh hardened his heart, the JWs accept that at face value--bible says it, i believe it. If a person cannot accept the plain Word of God, it is the person's problem, not God's problem.

When the bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the JWs say...we have to interpret that. Very complicated you see. the words are highly unclear, and besides one of our treasured concepts we built into our religion is critically damaged with the word accepted at face value. No, we need to massage these words until when the bible says God hardened his heart....we have it altered to Pharaoh hardened his heart. While God got the first part written correctly, he was careless, or erred in the second part, and it is up to the JWs to set God's Word to rights.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Right! The bible says two things about Pharaoh. in some passages Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Bible says so. In others God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Bible says that also.

When the bible says Pharaoh hardened his heart, the JWs accept that at face value--bible says it, i believe it. If a person cannot accept the plain Word of God, it is the person's problem, not God's problem.

When the bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the JWs say...we have to interpret that. Very complicated you see. the words are highly unclear, and besides one of our treasured concepts we built into our religion is critically damaged with the word accepted at face value. No, we need to massage these words until when the bible says God hardened his heart....we have it altered to Pharaoh hardened his heart. While God got the first part written correctly, he was careless, or erred in the second part, and it is up to the JWs to set God's Word to rights.

This isn't the real problem though. The real problem is in noting that it is under the Old covenant, which is no longer applicable to Jehovah's Witnesses, their obedience was dependant upon their own will and effort. This is explicitly what is going on when Moses places before them blessings and malediction. It's their choice. Those were the terms of the Old Covenant.

All Christian denominations claim that they are no longer under that covenant, but for some strange reason still think that the terms are valid for them anyways. Go figure. This is in spite of the fact that Paul has explicitly pointed out that under the new terms one keeps God's commandments "by faith". This is explicitly rejected in JW's literature. They favor the old terms "by obedience" or " by works". Their faith is demonstrated "by obedience" which is the Old Testament version. Odd to reject a covenant, but keep it's terms, no? Even more bewildering is to then openly reject the blessings in favor of the curses. The curses can only be claimed by those who claim they are no longer under the law. That only leaves those who are outside the law or "the lawless", and those who no longer sin. I know of no Christian denomination that claims they no longer sin.