How much a reader identifies with a particular aspect of Scripture depends on the extent to which the reader has actually experienced that facet. The less the overlap between a text and the reader’s experience, the less the reader will identify with the verse. Conversely, the greater the overlap between the text and the reader’s experience, the more the identification.

This linkage or lack thereof between experience and identification ought not to be confounded with reader response hermeneutics. In the latter, the reader’s experience shapes his or her interpretation. In the former, the reader’s repertoire of experience, while it does not correlate with his or her ability to understand or interpret, either enhances or dilutes his or her appreciation.

In the same way that, for instance, the story of the betrayal of Jesus will resonate with one who has experienced betrayal or a woman who has experienced vaginal birth will identify with biblical references to birth pangs, I find myself riveted to stories of immigrants in the bible for the simple reason that I too am an immigrant. I invite my fellow aliens to join me in a discussion of immigrants in the Bible; circumstances surrounding their immigration and lessons and principles that they present us based on their experiences abroad. First in our list is an “Iraqi” (ancient Ur of the Chaldeans or Mesopotamia) triad whose ultimate destination even though they did not know until they arrived was a region that includes present-day Israel.

The Triad of Abraham, Sarah, and Lot

Circumstances Surrounding their Immigration

Not many of us would claim to have been recipients of a crystal clear divine address instructing us to proceed abroad and tying our obedience with promises of massive lineage, name recognition, and translation into a conduit of blessing as was the case with Abram (cf., Gen 12:1). Similarly very few of us, if any at all, boarded our means of transport without knowledge of what county we were heading to as was the case with Abram (see Heb 11:8).

Having said that there are some who, even though they may not claim to have heard the voice of God’s, will testify to the workings of God that transformed their immigration from a wish to reality. I remember making a deal with God that I would only travel if my wife also got a visa. I interpreted the visa issuance as the green light from heaven.

Speaking of spouse, there are those among us who dig Sarah in that like her they tied the knot with their sweethearts at home and then accompanied their spouses or there are those who feel Lot in the sense that like he they accompanied a relative abroad. A far bigger percentage of us are able to sympathize with the psychological struggle and emotional turmoil that the twosome would have gone through in their decision to move away from a surrounding that they had gotten used to and settled in for at least sixty years. Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left for Canaan (Gen 12:4). Sarah was ten years his junior (Gen 17:17). Even more torturous is the realization that Abraham’s daddy, Terah, passed away while Abraham was abroad (cf. Heb 11:32) and there is no evidence that the son experienced the closure like one would if he or she goes back for the funeral or sits over the grave and cries to tearlessness. How my heart goes out to Abraham. While overseas we lost our third born brother. Sometime later our last-born brother passed away. About a year ago my mum slipped into eternity.

Lessons and Principles

There is time to share space and time to amicably part ways

Whether the space is pastureland, as was the case with the triad of Abram, Sarai and Lot or a crib, as would be our case, how long the host continues to share space with a brand new arrival, who would most probably be a relative or an old acquaintance, depends on how soon the stay hits the tipping point. For the triad, the deal breaker was strife caused by too much livestock in too little pastureland (Gen 13:6-7). For us the tipping point may be any number of things—the guest’s unwillingness to share in domestic chores or, when able, failure by the person being hosted to contribute financially towards the day-to-day household expenditures, feelings of “suffocation” because the visitor is overstaying his or her welcome, growing signs of contempt bred by familiarity, etc.

The challenge posed to us by the triad is to part ways with the person we have been hosting without jarring the relationship. A sure way of ensuring that the relational ties remains intact is to foster the necessary conditions that will allow for soft-landing for the guest on his or her way out. Abraham soft-landed Lot when he allowed him to go first in choosing the land that he would settle in (Gen 13:9).

Twice I have hosted a relative and in both instances I did provide a soft-landing for the individuals on their way out. I did not part ways with the guests until they found another place to move into. I was willing to part with items such as utensils, sheets, and blankets that I knew my departing guests would need as they settled in their new location. Because I fostered the conditions for soft-landing my relationship with these two individuals has remained intact and healthy.

Deception for the sake of self-preservation spells JEOPARDY

If you haven’t lied of late, it may just be that your existence has not been threatened. The truth of the matter is that we are most tempted to lie when our own survival is at stake. The sole reason for Abram pulling wool over the eyes of Egyptians was self-preservation (Gen 12:12-13). Unfortunately, while the fraud may win you a new lease in life, it does place other aspects of your life in jeopardy. Abraham lived to see another day but he faced the possibility of living the rest of that life without his wife who were it not for God’s intervention would have become Pharaoh’s wife.

Think of all the lies that some of us have engaged in abroad when things dear to us as life itself have threatened to slip away from or elude us; such things as the opportunity to work or the chance to regain, maintain, or upgrade legal status. Now think of what we have placed at risk as a result of our lies. Misrepresenting your status to gain employment may earn you the money that you desperately yearn for but it does block employer-based path to permanent residency since you can’t have your cake and eat it too. As a believer divorcing your spouse in order to marry a citizen causes both you and the divorcée “to commit adultery.” (Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18). Not to mention that if the ruse is uncovered you risk being fired, incarcerated, or even repatriated.

A Homeward Orientation inclines us to tune in to the news at home

Whether we tune in to or tune out the current affairs at home depends on whether we continue to possess or have lost a homeward orientation. In the person of Abraham, homeward orientation manifested itself in his strong desire, which he was careful to make known in his last will and testament, that his son Isaac only marry a woman from his homeland (Gen 24:1-4). Little wonder then that Abraham had his ear on the ground long enough to know the latest update on the family situation of his brother (Nahor) back at home (Gen 22:20-22). This update was crucial because as it turns out Bethuel, one of the several sons born to Nahor, became a father of a girl (Rebekah) who later on would become the wife of Isaac and in so doing fulfill the desire that Abraham had expressed in his will.

Homeward orientation for many of us exists for the simple reason that we still have loved ones back at home. Because of the presence of these loved ones at home we find ourselves continuously praying for the prosperity of our homelands since in the words of the prophet Jeremiah “in its welfare” our relatives will find their welfare (Jer. 29:7). Besides praying we call or text or facebook or google just to know what’s going down at home.

Declare your preferred burial location whether abroad or at home

All of us abroad will be buried either at home or in Diaspora. The question is whether we will have made our preference known prior to passing on. By not making our preference known before death we are delegating the decision-making process to someone else. Abraham seems to have made the decision for Sarah (Gen. 23:19) and by purchasing a burial ground he may have tipped his hand as to his preferred burial location, viz, abroad (Gen 23: 17-18).

The dictionary defines winking as  …   “closing and opening one eye [quickly, deliberately, or in an exaggerated fashion] to convey friendliness.”

God’s instruction to you and me is that we not wink at the enemy, especially if the winking is meant to convey friendliness. By enemy we are referring, of course, to the saboteur, the frustrator of our walk with God.

God’s instruction to you and me is that we, instead, be lethally ruthless, fatally ruthless, mortally ruthless with the enemy. We choose to be accommodating of the enemy, we choose to toy with the enemy, we choose to cuddle with the enemy to our own spiritual detriment.

For the children of Israel, the enemy, the saboteur of their worship of and service to the one and only true God—the saboteur was embodied in one, any or all of the “ites” (Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites). These “ites” the Bible exposes as the source of Israel’s allurement away from the worship of the true God and towards the worship of other gods (cf Deut 7:4a; cf 20:18a). Against these “ites” the Lord instructs Israel to “utterly destroy them” (Deut 7:2).

Now, numerous times Israel heeded the instruction to utterly destroy as in the case of Jericho for instance (Josh 6:21) or Makkeday (Josh 10:28) or Eglon (Josh 10:34-35) or Hebron (Josh 10:36-37). Israel was lethally, fatally, mortally ruthless with the enemy.

However there were also numerous times when Israel failed to heed the instruction to utterly destroy (Judges 1:21, 27, 28-33). Instead, the chose to wink, to be accommodative of the enemy, to toy with the enemy, to cuddle with the enemy.

The story of Ehud begins with the winky phase: The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD (Judg 3:12a). Show me the outworking or display of sin, and i will pinpoint for you the moment some winking took place. Sin follows on the heels of the wink. So if Israel did evil, its because they winked.

The winky phase gave way to the “whipy” phase: …the LORD strengthened King Eglon of Moab against Israel, because they had done what was evil in the sight of the LORD. Judg. In alliance with the Ammonites and the Amalekites, he went and defeated Israel; and they took possession of the city of palms. So the Israelites served King Eglon of Moab eighteen years (Judg 3:12-14).

The “whipy” phase ushered in the “weepy” phase:…the Israelites cried out to the LORD (3:15), Weeping in the book of Judges elicited divine mercy which expressed itself through the provision of a deliverer. This time the deliverer was a left-handed man by the name of Ehud. The face of the oppressor from whom Israel needed deliverance was a  morbidly obese character by the name of King Eglon. To cut a long story short, Ehud  … reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into Eglon’s belly; the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and the dirt came out (Judg 3:21-22).

The lesson that I draw from this story is ruthless dealing with the enemy. Matt. 5:29 states that “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Don Clark was a bespectacled lecturer during my days at NIST. Don was weird, so we thought. Anytime he was about to cross paths with a woman, gorgeous or not, Don would remove his glasses so he would not have to stare at the woman’s body. That was Don’s way of tearing his eyes. That was his way of dealing ruthlessly with the enemy, in this case the eye that would potentially cause him to sin.

How ruthless are you, how ruthless am I when it comes to sin in all its various forms?

If you asked Daniel his name, and if you asked runner # 693 his name, both of them would express hesitation. Runner # 693 childhood friends knew him as Stephen Cherono. Today, thanks to an alleged one million Kenya shillings to switch citizenship and more thanks to efforts by Qatar to arabize and may be even Islamize him, he now goes by the Arabic name Saif (“sword”) Saaeed Shaheen.

Same thing with Daniel. He grew up as Daniel. The “el” at the end of Daniel just like the “el” at the end his buddy’s name Mishael or the “yah” at end of the names of his other two buddies, Hananiah and Azariah is an abbreviation of Elohim or Yahweh.

In Babylon (present-day Iraq), Daniel was rebaptized “Belshazzar.”  “Bel” is the name of one of the gods worshipped over here.

Tell me that this name change was not an attempt erase Daniel’s Jewishness and possibly convert him to the dominant religion over here

How long did Daniel live in Babylon?

A good 46 years. He witnessed one colonial power (Babylon) rise and fall and a new colonial power (Media-Persia) rise in its place. He watched a dynasty come and go. Granted the dynasty began before he arrived in Babylon. He watched it continued by King Nebucahdnezzar (605-562), then Nebuchadnezzar’s son Evil-Marduk (562-560), then the brother-in-law of Evil-Marduk by the name of Neriglissar (560-556), then the son of Neriglissar, Labasi-Marduk (556), and finally Belshazzar.

What was his educational background?

He was alumni of the equivalent of Moi university or Kenyatta university except that his alma mater is called Nebuchadnezzar university. He majored in both literature and linguistics. As a result of his linguistic training he was tri-lingual. He spoke Akkadian, Aramaic and Hebrew.

Any college experience?

We know that while in college, he and his three buddies entered a fat and handsome contest and won. (Dan 1:10-15).

One word that describes him?

Fore-teller. Much of the material that makes up the book of Daniel  can be classified as prophetic dreams or visions. Some of the prophecies were fulfilled right away (e.g., Dan 4:10-16; 5:25-28). Others were fulfilled later (e.g., Dan 11:2-4)

Employment history?

He started off as part of the President’s staff (Dan 1:19), and very quickly rose up the ranks first as head of intelligence (2:48) and finally speaker of the house (Dan 5:29: “third” from the presidency)

His  legacy?

Someone has suggested the acronym ACTS to remind us of the different aspects of prayer. Daniel’s  legacy is in modeling more than ACTS. He tried to model PFACTS. “P” stands for posture (Dan 6:10 “… go down on his knees); “F” stands for frequently (Dan 6:10 … three time a day to pray; “A” stands for Adoration (Praise (Dan 2:20-22); “C” stands for confession (Confession, Intercession (Dan 9:4-20); “T” stands for Thanksgiving (Dan 2:23); and “S” stands for supplication (Petition (Dan 2:18)

Secondly, He modeled what is expected of a believer in the work place: “spirit of excellence” (Dan 6:3); Incorruptible; Faithful, No evidence of dereliction (Dan 6:4)

Lastly, He is remembered as one who lived out my faith no matter what, not when it was convenient

(a)   established responses. An example of an established response is men are meant to be worshippers, while God is the object of our worship.

(b)  established roles. An example of an established role is Human beings are regarded as servants, while God is master.

Speaking of servanthood, Jer 27 tags Nebuchadnezzar with the “servant” label (read Jer 27:1-8). Who else is referred to as a servant? Paul was a servant of the Lord. So was Peter, Jude, Epaphras, Timothy, James, Moses, John. Jesus was a servant. Raggs is a servant, so is Sam, Nicholas and James.

Going back to the pyramidal concept, God could easily have set the pyramid in stone but because Yahweh has conferred to humanity free will, the order or hierarchy is set in malleable play dough. As malleable as the pyramid is, it is not to be tampered with. It is perilous to tamper with the pyramid. You cannot tamper with the pyramid with impunity.

Two ways that we tamper with the pyramid:

(1) We tamper with the pyramid every time we take the glory for an accomplishment that is clearly attributable to God. Daniel serves an example of someone who was careful not to take the glory (2:21-23; 27-28), Nebuchadnezzar is an example of someone who did take the glory (Dan 2:37; 4:17, 25, 29-30). For taking the glory, for tampering with the pyramid, he was punished (4:31-33).

(2) We tamper with the pyramid when we substitute God with another object of worship (Dan 3:1, 4-6). Idolatry may not be the sin that so easily besets you and me  (even though I wonder whether we are not engaging in idolatry when we say “so and so is my idol”), but anytime we are fixiated with a certain goal or desire and if meeting the goal or satisfying the desire means breaking all the commandments and we are still willing to meet the goal or satisfy the desire, then God is no longer the object of our worship, the goal or the desire is.

Brother Toni would identify quite a bit with a character in the Scriptures who  likewise was a resident of the East side. We know that Jephthah hailed from Gilead, the territory of Israel east of the Jordan,  on the ground that the Gileadites of whom Jephthah was one traced their genealogy back to Mannaseh through the person of Gilead and his daddy Machir.  Another reason why we know Jephthah was from the East Side is the gist of  the back and forth dispatch between Jephthah and the King of Ammonites beginning in judges 11:12 all the way to verse 27,namely, a contested land mass that was  located on the East side.

Bro Toni would identify with Jephthah in yet another way. Like Toni, Jepthah was an SOH (Judg. 11:1 ¶ Now Jephthah the Gileadite, the son of a prostitute,). Talk of walking around cloaked in shame. Add on top of that being disinherited (Judg. 11:2).

I am impressed by Jephthah’s choice not to retaliate against his brothers especially because as the CEO of a company called “bad boys”( Judg. 11:3) he could easily have set the bad boys loose to chew up his brothers. One reason as to why Jephthah did not seek revenge was sooner than later the same people who flung the door shut behind Jepthah found themselves having to roll a red carpet for Jephthah (Judg. 11:4-10).The stone that the builders rejected as become the corner stone!!!

The real lesson that I draw out the Jephthah story is

(a) vow-making:

(Judg. 11:30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, Judg. 11:31 then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD’S, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering.”)

(b) and vow-keeping

(Judg. 11:32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand. Judg. 11:33 He inflicted a massive defeat on them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty towns, and as far as Abel-keramim. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. Judg. 11:34 ¶ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. Judg. 11:35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the LORD, and I cannot take back my vow.”).

Every June 24^th, I am reminded that, like Jephthah, I made a vow,yes to my wife, but ultimately to God.

Jepthah kept is vow:

(Judg. 11:39 At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made).

Will I keep my vow? Will you keep your vow

Chisholm frames the discussion on the ethicalness or un-ethicalness of Jephthah’s fulfilled vow as a Q & A of sorts– he poses and then offers his response to five questions. The first question he puts forth is whether or not Jephthah actually offered his daughter as a human sacrifice. According to Chisholm the wording of the vow’s apodosis (Judges 11:31) may not be conclusive that human sacrifice was intended but it does allow for it. The substantive masculine singular participle (“the one going out”) refers elsewhere to persons (Num 22:11; Deut 2:23; Josh 5:4; 1 Sam 17:20; 1 kings 8:19; Jer 5:6; Jer 21:9) and inanimate objects (Num 21:13; 32:24; Deut 14:22). The infinitive “to meet” can refer to people (Gen 14:17; 19:1), animals (Job 39:21) or inanimate beings (Isa. 14:9). To the view that argues that the mention of the virginity of Jephthah’s daughter implies that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, but instead devoted her to a life of celibacy as a servant of the Lord, Chisholm counters that the syntax does not support the reading “He will belong to the Lord, or I will offer him up as a burn sacrifice.” When the verbal sequence used here (a conjunction plus a perfect verbal form followed by another conjunction plus a perfect verbal form) appears elsewhere in Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, the second verb never gives an alternative to the first verb. This, according to Chisholm, strongly suggests that Jephthah’s daughter became the Lord’s by being sacrificed to Him as a whole burnt offering or that she was formally declared to be the Lord’s and then as a consequence was sacrificed to Him.

The second question is whether or not Jephthah’s vow can be attributed to divine prompting. Here Chisholm’s concurs with Webb’s conclusion, namely, in marking the vow (vv 30-31) as an interruption, the text’s structure indicates that while victory is casually related to Jephthah’s endowment with the Spirit it is only incidentally related to the vow.

The third question has to do with whether or not God really expected Jephthah to fulfill this grisly vow? In other words, having made his vow, did Jephthah have any option other than to fulfill it? Chisholm disagrees with Block about the applicability of Lev 27:1-8 to Jephthah’s situation. Leviticus 27:1-8 regulates cases in which one person vows another, that is, devotes a person to the sanctuary for sacred services and then for reasons unspecified finds it impossible or impractical to fulfill the vow. Chisholm also disagrees with Niditch about the applicability of the vow of herem (Num 21:2-3, cf Lev 27:28-29) because the word herem does not appear in Jepththah’s vow. Instead,Chisholm sides with Janzen’s explanation: the deuteronomistic history makes it clear that “obeying is better than sacrifice.” Against the background of the deuteronomistic law, the question of child sacrifice is hardly a borderline issue (cf Deut 12:29-31; 18:10)

The fourth question is: Does the narrator’s icy reportorial style, devoid of editorializing, suggest that he justified Jephthah or worse yet, placed the blame for this tragedy on Jephthah’s daughter? Chisholm’s response is that because of the narrator’s focus of interest is Jephthah, the seemingly objective perceptual perspective actually reflects a father’s perspective.

The final question is: If God did not demand this holocaust from Jephthah how then could He let such a thing happen in his name? Do not His inactivity and silence suggest complicity in the crime? According to Chisholm, God’s silence, while puzzling and even disturbing, need not be interpreted in some fatalistic manner to mean that He required fulfillment of the vow or approved of the sacrifice. The reality is that God grants humans the freedom to act against His antecedent or moral will.

To the African mind that contends that Christianity is a recently spotted UFO (un-African Foreign Object) and therefore deserving of rejection, incline thine ear to this quotation:

“Too many scholars of African culture trained in the West have regrettably acquired from the West a persistent hypermodern habit of assuming that Christianity began in Africa only a couple of centuries ago. The myth is that Christianity was imported from Europe and America. However, the evidence is much stronger to the contrary—that Europe and America learned from Africa much of their earliest layers of scriptural interpretation and consensus formation.”

The source of the above quotation is Thomas C. Oden, the Henry Anson Buttz Professor of Theology Emeritus at Drew University (Madison, New Jersey). A year ago (in 2009), Oden delivered the annual W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectureship at my alma mater, Dallas Theological Seminary. Initially entitled “Early Libyan Christianity,” the discourse was later repackaged as a four-part article that appeared in the Seminary journal between January and December 2010.

Granted, Oden’s focus is early Christianity in Libya. But who is to argue that Libya is not part of Africa. Liberal historical scholarship has insisted on excising Egypt from Africa. Libya, however, has not really been subject to detachment from Africa and reattachment to the Middle East.

Obliviousness of early Christianity in Libya specifically and North Africa in general is attributable to several factors according to Oden: (a) Little archaeological excavation or architectural analysis despite the fact that the remnants of early Christian history have lain silent in an almost pristine state without having layer after layer of urban sprawl built on top of them (b) Systematic abstention by the tourist industry from pointing out the religious importance of cities such as Cyrene and Leptis magna. The standard travel literature emphasizes the Greco-Roman ruins rather than the later Paleo-Christian and Byzantine remains and their accompanying centuries of Christian history (c) Ignorance by contemporary African Christian theology or indigenous Africans of the intellectual textual contributions by Christians in pre-AD 643 Africa. Such contributors include Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, Augustine, and Fulgentius (d) The physical geography of the continent shaped the fact that African Christianity found its way first to the north of the Sahara in the first millennium, and only in its second millennium did it reach the south

Lest one confound ignorance of a matter with lack of the matter, Oden painstakingly uncovers for his readers evidence of early Christianity in Libya. Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202), he notes, gives us the first documented written testimony of early Christianity in Libya before A.D. 180 in his Adversus haereses (written between A.D 182 and 189). Mention of Cyrene in the gospels (Mark 15:21; Acts 2:10; 6:9; 13:1) suggests that Libyan Christianity dates back to the first century. The African Pope, Victor (186-197), most probably hailed from Leptis Magna in Libya. Bishops from Libya were present at the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea (325) and Ephesus (431) (e.g., the bishop of ancient Olbia, now Qsar Libya) and the 363 council of Antioch (e.g., Serias of Paraetonium, Stephen of Ptolemais, Pollux of Libya Inferior, etc). Libya (Libu) is mentioned in the OT (1 Chron 1:8; 2 chron 12:3; Nah 3:9; Dan 11:43; Gen 10:6; Isa. 66:19; Jer 46:9; Ezek 27:10; 30:5; 38:5). The remains of five basilicas (western basilica, central basilica, eastern basilica, the chapel in the Byzantine ducal palace, and a triconchstyle cemetery basilica) serve as further evidence of the presence of Christianity in 5^th and 6^th century Libya.

Besides being concretely evidential in as far as the presence of early Christianity in Libya, Oden’s lecture could be characterized in other ways. It is proudful of Africa’s maturity, antiquity, and influence as far as the history of Christianity is concerned. Christianity in North Africa, he argues, has a much longer history than its European and American expressions. North American Christianity has survived a scant five hundred years since 1492, and in the United States since 1776, a little over two centuries. Libyan Christianity, on the other hand, is still alive after two millennia. Regarding influence World Christian orthodoxy is significantly shaped by the North African imagination spawned indigenously on North African soil.

It is castigatory. It is castigatory of the West. The most practiced European intellectual habit of the last five centuries is that of ignoring North African history. European history often proceeds as if Africa did not exist, at least in a way pertinent to Europe. It is castigatory of the African scholars. It is absurd for Africans to disown their own illustrious exegetical brilliance and theological roots that came out of African soil. It is especially vexing to misconceive this denial as if it were a true defense of African identity

It is prescriptive. The remedy to the lack of awareness by African scholars who have learned much of their history from Euro-American elitists who have little or no interest in African patristic sources is improved historical research and textual analysis. The narrow definition by many modern anthropologists of African traditional religions as to rule out the great written traditions produced on the continent of Africa must be countered by a broader definition of African traditional religion that adequately assesses the artifacts of African Christian history from the fourth to the eighth centuries

Lastly, it is commissionary. It remains the task of future scholars, many of them from Africa, to restudy the rising tide of ideas flowing from Africa to Europe in the third century, and to better describe their wide dissemination and impact.

“Why do I grin every time a high priest of the ‘mainstream’ Christian churches admonishes his followers not to associate themselves with any ‘cult’? We have recently heard a great deal of such sanctimony after a Ugandan cult murdered l,000 followers in the name of salvation. Is it merely that such churches – all of them imported from Europe and America – do not know what the word “cult” really means? The truth is that, with its more than a billion followers all over the world, the Christian Church is the largest cult on earth” (Philip Ochieng, “its a cult of darkness and damnation,” Daily Nation, April 16, 2000)

The ills against humanity at large that have been executed under the banner of Christendom will forever stand on the way of positive Christian witness. The biblical quotation “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you”  has never been so apt. The co-orporation between the missionaries and the colonist  or the admixing of missionary efforts with imperialistic mentality  was one such blunder. Endorsement of slavery in America or racism in South Africa by so called “Christians” was yet another big mistake. Decimation of Amerindians and Aborigines, nurturing of Hitler, activation of the Inquisition–these would all be sad examples if their association to Christendom is legitimate.

However we need to remind ourselves of the definition of a Christian. What is the  mark of a Christian? Borrowing from the words of the author of Christianity himself, “a tree is known by its fruit.”  A bad tree could have the word “good” scribbled all over its bark but it never ceases to be a bad tree since it consistently yields bad fruit. To use another analogy, you don’t judge the book by the cover; you evaluate a book on the basis of its content.

Ochieng’s association of Christianity with the Greek mystery religion Dionysos

Way back in the 60’s a scholar by the name of Samuel Sandmel stood before an audience of his own peers and delivered what has come to be considered  a celebrated address by New testament theologians. The speech was entitled “Parallelomania.” By parallelomania Sandmel  means that “extravagance” among practitioners of the religiongeschichte schule (or  the school of comparative study of religions) “which  first overdoses the supposed similarity of passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.”  It is my humble submission that Ochieng’s treatment of the relationship between Christianity and the Dionysos mystery religion oozes with the “pus” of parallelomania. It is not incontrovertible that the mystery religions (whether they be those of Demeter and Kore; Kabeiroi; Glykon and Alexander; or Dionysos) postdate Christianity in which case it may just be that these religions borrowed from Christianity and not the way round. Take for instance the Bachic practice of  tearing animals to pieces (sparagmos) and eating the flesh raw (omophagia ) as a way of assimilating the Dionysian power. According to Justin Martyr this  ceremony of drinking and eating by the Mithraic mystai was a diabolic imitation of the Christian Eucharist. The backdrop of the Christian Eucharist would have been the Passover which was inaugurated  way back in 15th century BC. But even if one were to contend that Christianity (and for that matter Judaism) did indeed borrow (and I believe it did sometimes),  would one have to conclude per force that Christianity wound up as paganistic? I don’t think so. Whatever borrowing that took place was Christianity’s incarnational attempt  to communicate through the stock vocabulary of its times.Thus when Moses applies the Baal-related (Baal was a canaanite God) epithet  “Rider of clouds” to Yahwheh (Deut 32:13) his intent is to communicate the superiority of Yahweh in terms that his audience would have been familiar with.

What about the question of Christianity been cultic?.

I guess it depends on which side of the fence one is speaking from. According to Bob Larson (in his book Cult, p.17) one of the characteristics of a cult is  the perpetration of the idea that “those outside are viewed as spiritually inferior, creating, therefore, an exclusive and self-righteous ‘we’ versus ‘they’ attitude.” It is not hard to envision how an outsider would look at this words and conclude that Christianity is in many ways cultic. But this would not be the first time, either, that Christianity was perceived as sectarian (cf. Acts 24:14).

Lastly, Is it legitimate to link Christianity with the terms “darkness” and “damnation.”

Of Christ himself it was said that “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. “ He in turn informed his disciples that they were the light of the world. Concerning those who belong to Christ the book states that “they is no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1). So how then shall we conclude,  is Christianity a cult of darkness and damnation? God forbid!

A juxtaposition of the newly published (in May 6^th 2010) proposed constitution now the subject of the August 4^th referendum, and its antecedent, which, though it dates as far back as 1963, has predictably undergone several amendments even as recently as 2008, surfaces three conjectures. First, the overlap between the two documents mainly at the topical and to some extent at the substantive level may suggest dependence by the “committee of experts” on the current document for organization of material and the committee’s recognition that there are aspects of the current constitution that apply or must apply today. Second, the introduction of new material in the proposed constitution or the evidence of alteration of the current constitution reveals the determination of the “people of Kenya” (through the committee) to set the country on a new path of thought and praxis for better or for worse. Third, omissions of certain aspects of the current constitution in the proposed constitution betray the judgment by the committee that the omitted material is outdated, irrelevant, or no longer acceptable. A clear example of omission due to archaicism is the section on who qualifies as a citizen after 11^th December 1963 (articles 87-89). Other examples of omission are: (1) exceptions to the prohibition against forced labor (73.3) (2) exceptions to protections of freedom of movement (83.3) (3) prorogation and dissolution of parliament (59.1-4) (4) the whole of article 15a which has to do with the position of the prime minister (5) minimum age limit of a presidential candidate (2b).

Overlap Between the two Documents (i.e., the 2008 version of the 1963 constitution and the May 6^th 2010 proposed constitution)

Chapter 1 of the current constitution (hereafter abbreviated as cc) and chapter 2 of the proposed constitution (here after abbreviated as pc), share the same title (“the Republic”) presumably because Kenya has never ceased to be a republic. The committee has all the intentions of maintaining the three branches of government; thus the retention of the chapters on the executive (chapter 2 of cc and chapter 9 of pc), the legislature (chapter 3 of cc and chapter 8 of pc), and the judiciary (chapter 4 of cc and chapter 10 of pc), Even though worded slightly differently in pc, the chapter on human rights (chapter 5 of cc and chapter 4 of pc), testifies to the committee’s recognition that as long as there are humans there will always be the need to protect their rights. Other chapters that share the same title are: citizenship (chapter 6 of cc and chapter 3 of pc), finance (chapter 7 of cc and chapter 12 of pc), public service (chapter 8 of cc and chapter 13 of pc), and land (chapter 9 of cc and chapter 5 of pc).

Besides topical overlaps, there are contents of cc that reappear in pc. Some re-appearances are verbatim. Some, even though reworded, retain the same meaning. A few examples will suffice: (1) the Kadhis’ courts (article 66 of cc and article 170 of pc) (2) immunity from prosecution for a sitting president (article 14.1-3 of cc and article 143.1-3 of pc) (3) term of office of president (article 9.2 of cc and article 142.2 of pc), (4) contingencies fund (article 102.1 of cc and article 208.1-2 of pc) (5) Kenya shall remain a democratic state (article 1.1a of cc and article 4.2 of pc) (6) reasons for deprivation of citizenship (article 94:1-2 of cc and article 17.1-2 of pc) (7) freedom from discrimination (article 82.3 of cc and article 27.1-8 of pc) (8) protection from inhumane treatment (article 74.1 of cc and article 29d of pc) (9) protection from slavery and forced labor (article 73.1-2 of cc and article 30.1-2 of pc) (10) protection of freedom of thought or religion (article 78.1-4 of cc and article 32.1-4 of pc) (11) freedom of expression (article 79.1 of cc and article 33.1 of pc) (12) freedom of association (article 80.1 of cc and article 36.1 of pc) (13) protection of right to property (article 75.1-7 of cc and article 40.1-4 of pc) (14) presumption of innocence, access to an attorney, adequate time for defense (article 77.2 of cc and articles 49-50 of pc) (15) unsound mind, imprisonment, and bankruptcy as disqualification to run for parliamentary elections (article 35.1b-d of cc and articles 99.2 e-g of pc) (16) missing eight parliamentary sessions as grounds for being required to vacate a parliamentary seat (article 39.1d of cc and articles 103.1b of pc) (17) the qualifications for the speaker and the deputy speaker (article 37.1/38.1 of cc and articles 106.1 of pc) (18) the requirement that a presidential candidate receive a minimum of twenty five percent of the votes in at least five of the eight provinces (article 5e of cc and articles 138.4b of pc) (19) existence of a judicial service commission (article 68 of cc and article 171 of pc) and (20) consolidated fund (article 99 of cc and article 206 of pc).

Introduction of New Material in the Proposed Constitution and Alteration of the Current Constitution

It is inescapable to any reader of pc that it not only departs in a major from cc, but arrives with new material altogether. New material include: (1) the preamble which, in citing among others the environment, human rights, culture, ethnicity, seems to be a broad summary of the content of the constitution (2) designating only three holidays (Jamuhuri day, Madaraka day, and Mashujaa day) as national days and empowering parliament to designate other national days (9.3-5, N/B Moi Day is no longer recognized as a national day and Kenyatta day has been renamed “Mashujaa day” probably to discourage the tendency of presidents to name national holidays after themselves) (3) promotion of Kenyan culture through the media, traditional celebrations, literature, etc (11.1-3) (4) citizenship rights for a child found in Kenya and who appears to be eight years old or below but whose parents are unknown (14.4) (5) the declaration that life begins at conception followed immediately by allowing abortion in certain situations (26.2-4) (6) freedom of media (34:1-5) (7) access to information (35.1-3) (8) social rights that include a prohibition against receiving emergency medical treatment (43.1-3) (9) rights to language and culture but with a prohibition against involuntary subjection to a cultural rite or practice (44.1-3, female circumcision may be in view here) (10) family law that recognizes that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex (45.1-4) (11) consumer rights (46.1-3) (12) right to remain silent and the requirement to be brought to court within twenty four hours (49.1) (13) rights of persons in custody (51.1-3) (14) rights of children (53.1-2), the disabled (54.1-2), youth (55), minorities and marginalized people (56), and older members of society (57) (15) state of emergency (58), Kenya human rights and equality commission (59) (16) whereas cc only addresses public or trust land, pc additionally discusses community land (63.1-5) and private land (64) and also establishes a National Land Commission (67) (17) environmental and natural resources (69-72) (18) a whole chapter on leadership and integrity (chapter 6, articles 73-80; article 79 instructs parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent ethics and anti-corruption commission) (19) a chapter that addresses the electoral system, an independent electoral and boundaries commission, and political parties (chapter 7, articles 88-92) (20) there shall now be a bicameral legislature (senate alongside the national assembly) which by the way originates not in the United States but in the ancient Libyan (African) city, Cyrene (articles 96 and 98) (21) a set general election date (101.1, second Tuesday of August) (22) right to recall a member of parliament (104.1-2) (23) time frame within which someone can file a lawsuit questioning the validity of a presidential election and the number of days the supreme court has to offer a ruling (140.1-2) (24) a parliamentary vote is part of the process of removing a president out of office due to incapacitation (144.10) (25) impeachment of the president (145.1-7) (26) qualification of an attorney general nominee spelt out and appointment has to be approved by parliament (156.2-3) (27) establishment of a supreme court (162.1) (28) the appointment of the chief Justice requires the recommendation of the Judicial Service commission and the approval of parliament (166.1) (29) set qualifications for the chief justice (166.3, fifteen years of judicial experience either as a practitioner or an academician) (30) retirement age of a judge set at 70 and a term limit of ten years set for the chief justice (167.1-2) (31) a chapter on devolved government (articles 174-200) (32) revenue funds for the county government (article 207), partly raised from taxes (article 209, income tax, value added tax, excise tax, custom duty), managed by the commission for revenue allocation (article 215) officer of the controller of budget and auditor general split with each of its heads subject to parliamentary approval and must meet certain qualifications (articles 228-229) (33) establishment of a salaries and remuneration commission (article 230) (34) a whole chapter on national security (articles 238-247) (35) a whole chapter on the running of commissions and independent offices (articles 248-254)

Examples of alterations are: (1) dual citizenship is no longer grounds for revocation of Kenyan citizenship (article 16 in pc, cf. 97.1-3 in cc) (2) the number of days that the president has to respond to a bill requiring his signature reduced from 34 to 14 (article 46.2-4 of cc and article 115.1 of pc) (3) quorum raised from thirty to fifty (article 51 of cc and article 121 of pc) (4) composition of the parliamentary service commission (article 45B.1 of cc and article 127.2 of pc, must include women and non-parliamentarians) (5) the speaker, not a minister, is third in command if the presidency is vacated (article 146.2b in pc, cf. 6.2b in cc) (6) the presidential running mate automatically becomes the deputy president as opposed to the president nominating a vice president (article 148.1 in pc, cf. 15.1 in cc) (7) ministers to be renamed cabinet secretaries and these will no longer be members of parliament; parliament will have to approve the secretaries (article 152.3 in pc, cf. 16.2 in cc) (8) the minimum number of judges that can constitute the court of appeal raised from two to twelve (article 164.1a in pc, cf. 64.2 in cc) (9) excluding the chairperson and the deputy, members of the public service commission reduced from eleven to seven and appointments subject to parliamentary approval (article 233.2 in pc, cf. 106.2 in cc)

Open letters to the Church Components of the “Yes” Camp (aka green team ) and the “No” Camp (aka the red team)

Open Letter to the Church Component of the “No” Camp

The red team can be viewed as a venn diagram made up of two overlapping circles.

One circle represents part of the church. Leaders of this group include the leadership of the Catholic Church in toto (case in point: copies of the Pastoral letter dated 15th April, 2010 and signed by His Eminence John Cardinal Njue on behalf of the 25 Catholic Bishops who include among others Philip Sulumeti, Anthony Muheria,, and Jackson Kosgey), leadership of NCCK led by chairman Rev Charles Kibicho, the leadership of the Anglican Church of Kenya led by the ACK House of Bishops, and a number of Evangelical leaders such as Bishop Willy Mutiso of the Evangelical Alliance, Bishop Gerry Kibarabara of the Gospel Assemblies of Kenya, Bishop David Oginde of Christ is the Answer, presiding Methodist Bishop Stephen Kanyaru, Bishop Winnie Owiti from the Voice of Healing and Salvation and Bishop Barija Kirongah. This group is irked chiefly by the abortion clauses (though some members of this group would include the Kadhis court clause) and will only support the proposed constitution if this clause(s) is (are) amended.

The other circle represents those who are rejecting the proposed constitution for reasons other than the two clauses. Some members of this group are motivated by politics (case in point: the Daily Nation report that three Rift Valley MPs—David Koech, Isaac Ruto and Elija Langat—promising to support Cyrus Jirongo for 2012 presidential bid if he “helped shoot down the constitution”).

The overlapping section represents the group whose basis for rejecting the proposed constitution does not stop with the two clauses. Members of this group include Ruto and Moi. The latter has cited others reasons such as taxation, foreign interference in the implementation of the proposed constitution, and the clause that requires that cabinet secretaries be non MPs. The former has uttered several claims such as the proposed constitution allows gay marriage, the land laws in the proposed constitution are dangerous, and regions like Ukambani are not fairly represented in the section about devolved government.

Dear Church,

Your reason to distrust the government to amend the constitution after it has been passed is founded on your experience with a government that turned you down during your negotiation talks. You offered suggestions such as the president promising to use executive order to amend the constitution and the suggestion was not taken up. Because of you Kenya may be saved from going the American way where permission to abort is now stare decisis (or settled law).

My beef with you is that you have not done good job of distinguishing yourself from the group that rejects the proposed constitution for reasons beyond the two clauses. In the event that the “no” side wins you may find that you have to support amendments other than the two clauses to avoid being viewed as letdowns or deceivers or traitors.

Open Letter to the Church Component of the “Yes” Camp

The green team could similarly be viewed as a two-circle venn diagram but in this case one circle is a subset of the other.

The inner circle represents (part of) the church that is as bothered as the rest of the church by the two clauses but prefers to pass the proposed constitution and then seek amendments later. The leadership of this subset includes the Anglican Bishop of Southern Nyanza Diocese Rt. Rev. James Kenneth Ochiel, Bishop Pius Mukoto of the African Church of the Holy Spirit (quoted as saying that “gains made so far in the acquisition of the proposed constitution cannot be down played, ignored and dragged through the mud, especially by the church for flimsy reasons”), Other prominent church leaders in support of the proposed constitution include retired cleric Timothy Njoya

The outer circle represents the group that has opted to sacrifice the concerns raised by the abortion clause at the altar of the superiority of the proposed constitution. The primary leaders of this group are Raila and Kibaki.

Dear Church

Bravo for highlighting the superiority of the proposed constitution compared to the current constitution. Indeed Kenya is facing the classical situation of baby and bath water or the presence of one rotten egg in a pack of many good eggs. The baby must be saved. The good eggs must be preserved.

My question to you is: how sure are you that the government will amend the two clauses you are concerned about? Didn’t parliament (including Raila and Kibaki who were present) pass the draft constitution without a single amendment on the week of July 5^th 2010? How sure are you that things will be any different?

Conclusion

In light of the government’s untrustworthiness on the question of amending the constitution to the liking of the church, the church should vote no. At the same time the church leadership should assure its members that it has all the intentions to pass the amended proposed constitution. Kenya with an unamended proposed constitution will cause God to turn his face away from us. Kenya without the amended proposed constitution will have to live with the regrets of a lost opportunity.

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to discover what light the account of Pharaoh’s obduracy sheds into the wider debate on the interplay between God’s Sovereignty and Human Free Will. Does the former override or occur apart from the latter or do the two occur in concert or in amalgamation with each other? To put it differently, our goal is to figure out what insight the story brings to the question of how free humans are to express their desires or wishes in the midst of the outworking of God’s agenda.
That the narrative would be cited in discussions related to Free Will and Divine Sovereignty should not be surprising. Its pertinence to the debate has been recognized as far back as the era of the Church Fathers. Reacting to those who suggest that Pharaoh was of an “earthly nature” and therefore possessed no propensity to obey, Origen argues that if Pharaoh was indeed of an earthy nature and thus altogether disobedient to God, “what need is there of his heart being hardened, and that not once, but frequently? Unless perhaps, since it was possible for him to obey.” A couple of paragraphs later he offers the illustration of the effect of the sun on wax and mud (the wax melts, while the mud hardens) to support the notion that the prior wickedness of Pharaoh made him prone to a hardened heart. Augustine cautions against taking away from Pharaoh free will simply because in several passages God says, “I have hardened Pharaoh;” or, “I have hardened or I will harden Pharaoh’s heart”:”It does not by any means follow that Pharaoh did not, on this account, harden his own heart. For this, too, is said of him, after the removal of the fly-plague from the Egyptians, in these words of the Scripture: “And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.” Thus it was that both God hardened him by His just judgment, and Pharaoh by his own free will.
An understanding of what the story teaches in regards to the relationship between God’s Sovereignty, expressed in his hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and Free Will, expressed in Pharaoh hardening his own heart, depends a lot on how thoroughly and carefully we exegete the eighteen Pharaoh-related statements that carry a Hebrew form that our English versions translate as “harden(ed)” in particular and the contexts in which these statements are found in general. The need for a thorough analysis of these statements before drawing a conclusion was first recognized and then carried out by G. K. Beale. Since then it has now become standard practice by any serious exegete of the Pharaoh story as it pertains to the hardening to take into consideration all the statements. We are not about to become an exception.

Exegesis of the Statements on the of Hardening of Pharaoh Within Their Context

The Boundaries of the General Context (Exod 2:23-14:31)

Considering that Pharaoh is a central part of the story, it makes sense that his entry into and exit out of the scene should mark the beginning and end of the narrative respectively. If that be the case Exod 2:23 ought to serve as the beginning point of the narrative since it announces the passing away of the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled and presumably signals the succession of the obdurate Pharaoh. The end of the fourteenth chapter of Exodus serves as the tail end of the narrative in light of its reporting of the drowning death of Pharaoh’s army which would have marked the fading away of Pharaoh militarily.

Exegesis of the Statements Within their Particular Contexts

1. The Call of Moses and his return to Egypt (2:23-7:7)
(a) Verse 4:21
The verse consists of an instruction by the Lord to Moses while the latter was en route to Egypt from whence he had fled to escape punishment for murdering an Egyptian (cf. 2:11-15). The instruction itself comes on the heels of an epiphany (2:23-4:17) during which the “the God of the fathers” revealed his plan to activate a covenantal promise of liberation made to Abraham some four hundred years prior (Gen 15:13-15, cf. Exod 3:6-9) and assigned Moses the role of an emancipator (Exod 3:10). Initially Moses was unwilling for one reason or another to step into this God-assigned role. But after a series of measures by the Lord that included assuring him of a warm reception by the elders of Israel (v18), foretelling for his benefit Pharaoh’s switch from refusal of to wonders-driven ultimate submission to the demand to free Israel (vv19-20, cf. 6:1), endowing him with the ability to perform signs that would engender belief among the people (4:1-9), providing him with a spokesman in light of his excuse that he was not eloquent (4:10-17), Moses was on his way to Egypt.
The instruction to Moses was that he would see to it that he performs before Pharaoh all the wonders that the Lord had placed at his disposal. The “wonders” in view here are different from are the three signs (4:2-9; cf. 29-31) that had been placed at Moses’ disposal during the epiphany in the sense that the signs were geared towards eliciting belief among the elders of Israel while the wonders were to be displayed before Pharaoh.
Besides the instruction, the verse also consists of a prediction as indicated by the imperfect verb “acchazeq.” The verb itself, when associated with the noun “lev” (heart), is best translated as stubborn or heard-hearted. That the stubbornness will defy reality is deducible from the observation that the syntax of the prediction is a disjunctive clause. The expected normal reaction towards the sign would be surrender. But that was not to be so in the case of Pharaoh. He was to react to the contrary–stubbornly. Furthermore, the stubbornness would not only manifest itself in him refusing to let Israel go (4:21), but would characterize his reaction throughout his encounter with the divinely engendered wonders. Thus the order of the cyclical occurrence would be a display of a sign, followed by a God-engendered obstinacy, which will manifest itself in Pharaoh’s refusal to permit Israel to leave.
On the question of the relationship between God’s role and human involvement, this verse emphasizes the former in its assignment of God as the subject of the verb and the human (Pharaoh) as the object. Nevertheless the suppression of Pharaoh’s role in the hardening process in terms of his own desires or intent must be regarded for now as only apparent until the outworking on the prediction is fully analyzed.
(b) Verse 7:3
The disjunctive clause with which the verse commences contrasts the preceding and succeeding actions. The preceding action constitutes a command directed to Moses and Aaron to require Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave (v2). The succeeding action centers around the verb “qsh,” which when it occurs in conjunction with “lev” and is in the hiphil stem carries the causative meaning of “to cause to be hard” or “to harden.” The subject of the verb is the Lord and the hardening that he predicts he will cause will afford him the opportunity to unleash more signs and wonders. The predicted outcome of the unleashing of the signs and wonders is two-fold: (i) Pharaoh will yield to the demand to free Israel and (ii) the Egyptians will recognize who God is (vv 4-5).
As was the case with 4:21, the order of events here is also cyclical but unlike 4:21 the order here is reversed: hardening of heart, which here takes the form of Pharaoh refusing to listen to Moses and Aaron (7:4), will be followed by a sign. Much like 4:21, this verse highlights God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Nevertheless it would be premature to rule out the human aspect until the various fulfillments of the prophecy are analyzed.

2. The Plagues followed by the Exodus (7:8-14:31)

(a) The initial sign: turning a staff into a snake (7:8-13)
Noteworthy is the phrase “as the Lord had said” at the end of verse 13. In its occurrences, whether as a mark of a heeded divine instruction or a fulfillment of a divine prediction, the phrase is customarily coupled by a succinct rehearsal of the original prediction or instruction.
In the case of the verse 13 occurrence, the rehearsal constitutes of two related responses: the hardening of pharaoh’s heart and his refusal to listen to Moses and Aaron. No one doubts that the original prediction of these two responses is traceable to either 4:21 or 7:3. For sure the record of the lopsided outcome of the contest involving staffs turning into snakes in favor of Aaron (vv9-12) and the mention of Pharaoh’s unwillingness to listen to Moses’ request to let the people go in verse 13 recalls the prediction in 4:21 where the performance of a sign is followed by an unbelievable stubbornness that manifests itself Pharaoh’s unwillingness to let the people go. At the same time the mention of Pharaoh’s unwillingness to listen recalls the language of 7:3-4 in particular.
The difficulty is the “exact correspondence” that elsewhere characterizes the phrase fails to materialize when it comes to the subject of “chzq” in 7:13 and 4:21. Whereas God is the subject of the verb in 4:21, he is not the subject of the intransitive verb (chzq) (v 13). What are we to make of this incongruity? Should we, as suggested by Fleener, associate the phrase more tightly with Pharaoh’s refusal to listen and the fact that his heart was hardened and de-link the phrase from the idea that God is the agent of the hardening? Or should we, as Chisholm does, link the phrase with “Yahweh’s hardening activity”?
Our suggestion is that we acknowledge the incongruity, as Fleener does, but, unlike him, link the phrase, not with the idea that God is the agent of hardening, as Chisholm does, but only with the idea of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and then let the context identify for us the agent of the hardening. In the case of v 13, the author is less interested in highlighting the agent of the hardening and more interested in describing the condition of Pharaoh’s heart following the sign of the staffs turning into snakes.

(b) The first plague: bloody waters (7:14-24)
The opening statement (v 14) of this section coupled by the refrain “as the Lord had said” which appears alongside the dual response of a hardened heart, indicated by the intransitive verb (khvd) in verse 14 and “chzq” in verse 22, and unwillingness to listen (v 22) render this section a fulfillment of 7:3 where defiance attracts more signs. The duplication of the sign of bloody waters by the magicians serves as catalyst for Pharaoh’s dismissal of Moses and Aaron assuming that the waw consecutive in the waw consecutive plus preterite, “yechezaq,” carries a causal nuance. As in the case of 7:13, the author is not necessarily interested in explicitly identifying the agent of the hardening. Not to belabor the point, the presence of the refrain should not automatically be interpreted to mean that God is the agent of the hardening whether directly or ultimately. The context must be the basis of such a determination.

(c) The plague of frogs (7:25-8:15)
As was the case with the sign of the bloody waters, the magicians replicated the plague of frogs which we should assume was set in motion following Pharaoh’s refusal to yield to Yahweh’s ultimatum (8:1-4). The difference is this time around Pharaoh did not sit back while his subjects fended for themselves and the plague continued on unabated. At the commencement of the plague, Pharaoh requested Moses and Aaron to entreat the Lord for relief. Moses honored the request and the Lord terminated the plague. This termination certainly propelled Pharaoh to harden his heart. But once again the appearance of the refrain “as the Lord had said” ought not to be the basis of the conclusion that God did or did not play a part in the hardening process. Unlike the narrative of the initial sign (7:8-13) and the first plague (14-24), the context provides a clue or two that suggest that God played a role in the hardening as much as he is not the subject of the hiphil infinitive absolute “hakhbed” (8:15. 8:11 in MT). For instance, one could argue that God offered the respite in order to give Pharaoh a reason to renegade on his promise to Israel leave.

(d) The plague of gnats (8:16-19)
Until now the contest between the agents of Pharaoh (the magicians) and the agents of Yahweh (Moses and Aaron) had ended in a draw more or less. Sure, the contest involving staffs turning into snaked ended as more than a draw. But until now the outcome had not been a clear, hands-down win for God. Not only were the magicians unable to replicate the plague of gnats, they attributed it unequivocally to God. The expectation would have been for Pharaoh to buckle. He did not. His heart hardened. Once again the presence of the refrain (8:19, 8:15 in MT) ought not to be regarded as indicating that the hardening is attributable to God.

(e) The plague of flies (8:20-32)
As was the case with the sign of bloody waters, Pharaoh begs Moses to offer an intercessory prayer and then renegades by hardening (yakhbed) his heart (8:32, 8:28 in MT) when the plague of flies, limited only to the space occupied by the Egyptians, dies down. Those who rely on the presence of the refrain alone as intimation that God was involved in the hardening would be at a loss here since the refrain is absent. Looking to the context reveals that Pharaoh indeed hardened his heart. At the same time God played a role in the sense that it is he who answered Moses’ intercessory prayer.

(f) The plague of animal pestilence (9:1-7)
Like the sign of flies, the livestock pestilence was directed only at the animals that belonged to the Egyptians. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (9:7) despite this plague fits the prediction uttered by the Lord in 4:21 and 7:3. Unlike the sign of the flies, the author is less concerned with the agent of the hardening and more interested in stating the condition of Pharaoh’s heart.

(g) The plague of boils over animals and humans (9:8-12)
Herein we find a perfect match between the antecedent of the refrain (“just as the Lord has spoken”) and the rehash of the antecedent. The antecedent normally takes the form of a prediction, which in this case is spelt out in 4:21 and 7:3. The rehash coupled with the refrain mark the fulfillment of the prediction. We consider the antecedent and the rehash a perfect match in the sense that Pharaoh’s heart is hardened and that God is the agent of the hardening as is evidenced by the fact that he is the subject of the piel form of “chzq.”

(h) The plague of hail (9:13-35)
The plague of hail resembles the plague of flies in terms of target and Pharaoh’s response. The plague does not affect Goshen. Pharaoh pleads for Moses’ interposition and when the prayer is positively answered, goes back on his word by hardening his heart (9:34). Once again God’s role in the hardening is evident not so much in the refrain (9:35) as it is in the fact that he answered Moses’ prayer on behalf of Pharaoh for relief from the plague.

(i) The plague of locusts (10:1-20)
More than recalling 7:3 by tying the God-engendered hardening of Pharaoh’s heartand the signs, verse 1 explicitly presents the latter as the reason for the former through the use of the particle “lema’an.” Furthermore, the statement offers two other reasons as to why God unleashed the plagues.
In verse 20 God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is explicitly laid out. At the same time, the positive answer to Pharaoh’s pleading that the locust plague be terminated would have contributed to the hardening.

(j) The plague of darkness (10:21-29)
Once again the hardening (10:27) is attributed directly to God though the use of the piel verb and God as the subject. Could the mildness of the plague (darkness in the whole of Egypt except Goshen) also have contributed to the hardening?

(k) The plague of the death of the firstborn (11:1-12:33)
If 11:9 recalls 7:3 through a shared verbal form (rvh) that has God as the subject, 11:10 echoes 4:21 by its use of both the piel form of “chzq” and its rehearsal of Pharaoh’s refusal to let Israel go.

(l) Journey from Egypt (12:34-14:31)
Pharaoh’s pursuit of Israel even after he permitted them to leave is attributed to a God-engendered hardening of the heart.(14:4, cf v8) God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is clearly spelt out in his re-routing of Israel (v2). At the same time the hardening is described in terms of human motivation and desires. In this case, Pharaoh is motivated by the sight of a people seemingly trapped in the wilderness (v 3) and driven by the desire not to lose a source of labor (v5).

III Conclusion
The eighteen statements that carry a Hebrew form that our English versions translate as “harden(ed)” and the context in which these statements are housed reveal the following in regards to the relationship between God’s Sovereignty, expressed in his hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and Human Free Will, expressed in Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Pharaoh’s obduracy is one among several biblical examples where the unfolding of God’s purpose occurs, not apart from, but in amalgamation or in concert with, human desire, inclinations, or reasoning. In other words, as much as God’s superintendence is irrefutable, the outworking of his purpose incorporates or more precisely, fans human motivation, desires or wishes. For instance, Pharaoh’s pursuit of Israel even after he permitted them to leave is attributed to a God-engendered hardening of the heart (14:4, cf v8). God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is clearly spelt out in his re-routing of Israel (v2). The sigh of a people seemingly trapped in the wilderness (v3) surely fanned Pharaoh’s effort to acts in order not to lose a source of labor (v5). Another example would be the instances where divinely engendered hardening is coupled with God’s termination a plague following Moses intercessory prayer on behalf of Pharaoh. The termination most assuredly served as a catalyst for Pharaoh’s reluctance to let Israel go (cf. 8:15, 31-32; 9:34;10:19-20).
Granted, there are instances within the eighteen statements where the hardening is attributed exclusively to God or to Pharaoh. An example of the former is the plague of boils over animals and humans (9:8-12). Examples of the latter are the numerous God-given ultimatums that Pharaoh simply ignored. In the final analysis, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is traceable to three sources: Pharaoh himself, God, and divinely directed outcomes that propelled Pharaoh towards the direction of obduracy.

Bibliography

Beale, G. K. “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9.” Trinity Journal 5 (1984): 129-154.
Breshears, Gerry. “Who hardened Pharaoh’s heart?” In Evangelical Theological Society, 10. Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1988.
Chisholm, Robert B. “Divine Hardening in the Old Testament.” In Evangelical Theological Society, 29. Philadelpia, 1995
________________. “Divine Hardening in the Old Testament.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (October-December 1996): 410-434.
Fleener, Joe. “Paul and Divine Foreknowledge: Did God Determine Pharaoh’s Heart?” In Evangelical Theological Society. Lancaster, PA, 2003.
Gunn, David M. “The “Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart”: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14.” In Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, ed. David M. Gunn and Alan J. Hauser David J. A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 19, 72-96. Sheffield, 1982.
Holmyard, Harold R. “How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart.” In Evangelical Theological Society, 2000.
Piper, John. The Jutification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.