Romans 9:18

From this particular example Paul deduces, as in Romans 9:16, the general principle, while reproducing by way of antithesis the maxim of Romans 9:16, so as to combine the two aspects in which he wishes here to present divine liberty: “No man can say either: I am, whatever I may do, safe from the judgment of God, or such another, whatever he may do, is unworthy of the divine favor.”

The repetition of the words: him that willeth, as well as their position at the head of the two sentences, shows that the emphasis is on this idea. To a son who should complain of the favors granted to one of his brothers, and of the severe treatment to which he is himself subjected, might it not be said: “Thy father is free both to show favor and to chastise;” it being understood that the man who answers thus does not confound liberty with caprice, and assumes that the father's character sufficiently secures the wise and just exercise of his liberty? We must here cite the observation of Bengel, fixing the antithesis Paul has in view, and explaining his words: “The Jews thought that in no case could they be abandoned by God, and in no case could the Gentiles be received by God.” The apostle breaks the iron circle within which this people claimed to confine the divine conduct toward themselves and the Gentiles, saying: to the Gentiles wrath; to us, the only elect, clemency!

What is meant by the term hardening, and what leads the apostle to use the expression here? The notion of hardening was not contained in the term raised up, but in its relation to the conjunction that which follows (see Meyer); besides, the narrative of Exodus was in the memory of every reader. God, in raising up Pharaoh, foresaw his proud resistance, and had in reserve to chastise it afterward by a complete blindness which was to be the means of reaching the desired result.

To harden signifies: to take from a man the sense of the true, the just, and even the useful, so that he is no longer open to the wise admonitions and significant circumstances which should turn him aside from the evil way on which he has entered. We need not therefore seek to weaken the force of the term, as Origen and Grotius do, who regard it as only a simple permission on the part of God (leaving the sinner to harden himself), or like Carpzov, Semler, etc., who explain it in the sense of treating harshly. The word harden cannot signify, in the account Exodus 4-14, anything else, as God's act, than it signifies as the act of Pharaoh, when it is said that he hardened himself. But what must not be forgotten, and what appears distinctly from the whole narrative, is, that Pharaoh's hardening was at first his own act. Five times it is said of him that he himself hardened or made heavy his heart (Exodus 7:13-14; Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:15; Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:7; we do not speak here of Exo 4:21 and Exodus 7:3, which are a prophecy), before the time when it is at last said that God hardened him (Exo 9:12); and even after that, as if a remnant of liberty still remained to him, it is said for a last time that he hardened himself (Exo 9:34-35). It was a parallel act to that of Judas closing his heart to the last appeal. Then at length, as if by way of a terrible retribution, God hardened him five times (Exodus 10:1; Exodus 10:20; Exodus 10:27; Exodus 11:10, and Exo 14:8). Thus he at first closed his heart obstinately against the influence exercised on him by the summonses of Moses and the first chastisements which overtook him; that was his sin. And thereafter, but still within limits, God rendered him deaf not merely to the voice of justice, but to that of sound sense and simple prudence: that was his punishment.

Far, then, from its having been God who urged him to evil, God punished him with the most terrible chastisements, for the evil to which he voluntarily gave himself up. In this expression hardening we find the same idea as in the παραδιδόναι (“God gave them up ”), by which the apostle expressed God's judgment on the Gentiles for their refusal to welcome the revelation which He gave of Himself in nature and conscience (Romans 1:24; Romans 1:26; Romans 1:28). When man has wilfully quenched the light he has received and the first rebukes of divine mercy, and when he persists in giving himself up to his evil instincts, there comes a time when God withdraws from him the beneficent action of His grace. Then the man becomes insensible even to the counsels of prudence. He is thenceforth like a horse with the bit in his teeth, running blindly to his destruction. He has rejected salvation for himself, he was free to do so; but he cannot prevent God from now making use of him and of his ruin to advance the salvation of others. From being the end, he is degraded to the rank of means. Such was the lot of Pharaoh. Everybody in Egypt saw clearly whither his mad resistance tended. His magicians told him (Exo 8:19): “This is the finger of God.” His servants told him (Exo 10:7): “Let these people go.” He himself, after every plague, felt his heart relent. He once went the length of crying out (Exo 9:27): “I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous.” Now was the decisive instant...for the last time after this moment of softening he hardened himself (Exo 9:33). Then the righteousness of God took hold of him. He had refused to glorify God actively, he must glorify Him passively. The Jews did not at all disapprove of this conduct on God's part as long as it concerned only Pharaoh or the Gentiles; but what they affirmed, in virtue of their divine election, was, that never, and on no condition, could they themselves be the objects of such a judgment. They restricted the liberty of divine judgment on themselves, as they restricted the liberty of grace toward the Gentiles. Paul in our verse re-establishes both liberties, vindicating God's sole right to judge whether this or that man possesses the conditions on which He will think fit to show him favor, or those which will make it suitable for Him to punish by hardening him.

Thus understood and we do not think that either the context of the apostle, or that of Exodus allows it to be understood otherwise it offers nothing to shock the conscience; it is entirely to the glory of the divine character, and Holsten has no right to paraphrase or rather to caricature the view of Paul by saying: “God shows grace, pure arbitrariness; God hardens, pure arbitrariness.”

Perhaps we shall be charged with introducing into the explanation of the apostolic text clauses which are not found in it. This charge is just; only it is not against us that it comes. The reserves indicated in our interpretation arose of themselves, we think, from the special case the apostle had in view. For he was not here writing a philosophy or a system of Christian dogmatics; he was combating a determined adversary, Jewish Pharisaism with its lofty pretensions both in relation to the Gentiles, and relatively to God Himself. Paul, therefore, only unveils the side of the truth overlooked by this adversary, that of divine liberty. Certainly if Paul had been disputing with an opponent who started from the opposite point of view, and who exaggerated divine liberty so as to make it a purely arbitrary and tyrannical will, he would have brought out the opposite side of the truth, that of the moral conditions which are taken into account by a wise and good sovereignty, like that of God.

This occasional character of the apostle's teaching in this chapter has not always been considered; men have sought in it a general and complete exposition of the doctrine of the divine decrees; and so they have completely mistaken its meaning. And hence we have been forced to put ourselves at the general standpoint by supplying the clauses which the apostle took for granted, and the statement of which was not required by the particular application he had in view.

The apostle has proved from Scripture God's liberty to show grace when He thinks right, as well as His liberty to chastise by hardening when He thinks right. On this point the adversary can make no reply; he is forced to accept the apostle's demonstration. But here is his rejoinder: “Granted! says he, God has the right to harden me. But at least let Him not claim to complain of me after having hardened me.” To this new rejoinder the apostle answers first by a figure, which he will afterward apply to the case in question. The figure of the potter: