19 Page the Potter S Wheel - Romans 9:14-33

1 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

C.S. Lewis once stated his biggest fear was not that God did not exist, but that God was different from how he imagined Him to be or perhaps even better said, different from how he wanted Him to be. In short, his concern was with the possibility that God might be all head and no heart who acted arbitrarily upon and within the course of human events. Was God really fair and just and kind? Or was God, in fact, only calculating and indifferent, perhaps even cruel? I dare say this is the same fear of many who read chapter 9 of Romans. Here, in this chapter, God appears different from how they imagined Him to be and some may even go as far as to say, if God truly is how some would describe Him here, different from how they want Him to be.

In chapter 9 of Romans, Paul has been addressing the sovereignty of God as it involves the nation of Israel. Why did God choose to work through that nation? Paul’s claim is that it was a sovereign choice of grace, not related to any merit on Israel’s part. God chose to work through Isaac, not Ishmael, and Jacob not Esau. These choices had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Isaac and Jacob being more deserving than Ishmael and Esau. One of the ironies here to me is no matter what choices God makes someone will always step forward to question why He didn’t choose differently. If God had chosen Ishmael and Esau, some would still ask the question why He didn’t make the other choice.

I think that Paul immediately reacts to this line of questioning because it seems to make man God’s judge…man sees himself as sitting on the bench sifting through the evidence to decide whether God has used good judgment. Man is saying, “God justify your choice to me and perhaps I will render a 2 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 verdict in your favor.” This puts Paul’s toga in a twist.

It is also clear as I will point out in a moment that God’s sovereign choices were not related to foreknowledge. In other words, He didn’t choose Isaac and Jacob because He foreknew things would work out better with them, but simply because He foreordained He would work through them to bring about the results He desired.

Lest you think I am mistaken, I would suggest to you that the objections Paul addresses next, demonstrates, in my view quite clearly, that Paul’s arguments heretofore stated, should be understood in the foreordination sense and not the foreknowledge sense. Why? Because no objection could be raised to the foreknowledge scenario. If Paul’s point was simply God chose the way He did based on His foreknowledge that Isaac was a better choice than Ishmael and Jacob was a better choice than Esau, who could argue against that? No one really struggle with that concept because it does not call into question God’s fairness.

Rather, the argument comes because they understand Paul to be saying something entirely different which strikes them as fundamentally unfair. With God’s sovereign choice came blessing and honor, and apart from that choice came rejection and desecration. Would not it have been more just for these men to prove themselves unworthy first and then a distinction made? Wasn’t it unjust of God to have made a distinction between them before they were even born and before they had done anything good or evil? Ishmael and Esau never had a real chance…they were doomed from the beginning. This is the mindset Paul now addresses: 3 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

Romans 9:14-18 MERCY OVER MERIT

Romans 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Before we get into this let me set what I believe is the real context of Romans 9 (which is aided by understanding the importance of chapter 2 and 4 and their bearing upon chapter 9). Sometimes we get to arguing here over the trees so we don’t see the forest. In other words I think the bigger picture is lost as we argue over what it means that God hated Esau, hardened pharaoh’s heart and made pottery for common use. Romans 9 is actually a continued defense of grace over works. How so? The person who questions God in this chapter is actually implying that it would seem to be more just for God to make His determination (i.e. His choices) on the basis of works. That is what all this is really about… the natural human response is to evaluate who was better deserving of the blessings of God. If neither Ishmael, Isaac, Esau nor Jacob deserved God’s blessings it seems arbitrary that Isaac and Jacob are picked and Ishmael and Esau are passed over, but if it were based upon their actions, even His foreknowledge of what their actions would be is considered, then we could understand why He works 4 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 through some and not others. Paul is arguing that God had to make a sovereign choice because that was the only way for God to make a gracious choice.

Look at Romans 9:11-12 again:

11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls-she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

God’s purpose in election is that he chooses to work through grace, not works. The person who argues against this is actually arguing that God should take works into account. However, just as Paul pointed out in chapter four we cannot place God in our debt by our actions. In the case of Jacob he did not receive the blessing because he and his mother, Rebecca, desired for him to have it; nor did it result from he and his mother’s scheme to run for it by tricking Isaac and Esau. What procured him the blessing was the sovereign choice of God which had already been made…God chose to give it as a gift.

Paul then gives us another illustration. We are reminded of, not only, God’s apparent determination to make Pharaoh stubborn. God then punishes Pharaoh for being stubborn and, hey, what could be fairer than that? This question comes because the subtext when God doesn’t choose people like Ishmael and Esau is it because He has determined to with hold mercy and compassion from them? 5 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

Some say God predetermined that He would make Pharaoh stubbornly refuse to let Israel go; nevertheless, somewhat confusingly Pharaoh is blamed for refusing to let them go not God, even though God made him refuse. The explanation for God doing this is He wanted to display His power, so He made Pharaoh stubborn so that there could be ten plagues to display His glory instead of three plagues. You see what I’m getting at? If God had not made Pharaoh stubborn perhaps an unstubborn Pharaoh would have caved after the first couple of plagues. Critics say if God made Pharaoh stubbornly refuse, then when God is asking Pharaoh to let His people go it is not really Pharaoh’s refusal as much as it is God’s refusal to deliver them at that time. Yet God, as we will see momentarily appears, to blame Pharaoh, not Himself and this is illogical and makes God disingenuous when He seems to be allowing Pharaoh to make the decision.

Ex 9:16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. NIV

But is this view an accurate description of what actually happened? Did God actually make Pharaoh continue to stubbornly resist when perhaps if left to his own he might have caved in earlier? A careful study of the Exodus narrative shows that ten times it says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and ten times it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but it says Pharaoh hardened his own heart seven times before it says God hardened it for the first time.

1. Ex 7:13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to 6 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

them, just as the LORD had said. NIV

2. Ex 7:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is unyielding; he refuses to let the people go. NIV

3. Ex 7:22 But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret arts, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said. NIV

4. Ex 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said. NIV

5. Ex 8:19 The magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the LORD had said. NIV

6. Ex 8:32 But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go. NIV

7. Ex 9:7 Pharaoh sent men to investigate and found that not even one of the animals of the Israelites had died. Yet his heart was unyielding and he would not let the people go. NIV

Ex 9:12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses. NIV 7 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

Even after God hardened it, Pharaoh still had power to harden it further.

So how do we explain this? Some believe that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart should be likened to the way sunshine hardens clay but softens wax. It is the properties of clay and wax that determine how they respond to the activity of the sun. Pharaoh’s natural predisposition was to be self-willed and rebellious so the activities of God only led to the further hardening of his heart. Therefore while it is true that God’s activities hardened his heart, it was only because his heart remained stubborn and unrepentant. So some view the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart on the part of God to be primarily passive as He merely gave him over to his own natural predisposition rather than making him act differently than he would otherwise act.

Interestingly, Moses and Pharaoh had a lot in common. They were both raised in the power and influence of Egypt, they both were murderers and they both observed the same mighty display of God’s power. Moses was humbled by it, Pharaoh rebelled against it. Moses bowed down in fear before the Lord while Pharaoh stood up in defiance. The same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay.

Romans 9:19-21 MAN’S OBJECTIONS

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 8 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

Even if we accept that Pharaoh hardened his own heart first we still have to deal with the fact that God hardened it further. This is why the objection comes in the form it does: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" Since at some point God does harden Pharaoh’s heart why does He from that point forward still blame Pharaoh? Should His blame stop when His hardening starts? How can He find fault when it is impossible resist His will?

If God at any point began to harden Pharaoh’s heart, then how can Pharaoh be held accountable for being stubborn and obstinate? Pharaoh seems to have had no choice in the matter. Maybe if given a choice the Pharaoh would have just as soon have been Irving the Stable Boy.

But let’s not lose sight of the broader question here. The greater context is how can God blame Israel for rejecting Him if at some point He hardened them just like He did the Pharaoh? Paul counters with what can only be defined as some of the most solid ironclad apologetics this side of “Oh, yeah” and “Sez you!” For in . . .

Romans 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! and here in verse 20 he responds with the brilliant. . .

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

These are pretty much you’re all-purpose comebacks. “May it never be” and “who are you to question God?”! These are going to be my new answers for 9 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 all difficult Bible questions. (“Pastor Jeff do you think it just for God to send people to hell who have never heard the gospel?” May it never be, not at all! “Well, I just don’t see how could that be fair?” Hey, who are you to question God?)

Actually let me point out for a moment the irony of the question. The question that suggests that no one can resist God, is itself a question of resistance, is it not? The person who asks the question is resisting God with reference to the idea that He cannot be resisted.

Paul uses here the illustration of the potter who can take from the same lump, clay to be fashioned in a form to be used for sacred purposes and clay to be fashioned in a form to be used for not-so-sacred purposes. Why did Paul choose this particular analogy? To the Western mind this illustration seems a little fatalistic, but the Jewish mind would have been reminded of the potter passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Isaiah passages basically say the pots or clay should not be telling the potter what to do. The Jeremiah passage is the most interesting for our purposes:

Jer 18:1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand 10 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

11 "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, `This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.' 12 But they will reply, `It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.'"

This passage seems to indicate that the potter does not mar the clay, the clay is marred in his hands and then the properties of the clay are taken into account by the potter as he determines how he will use it. Paul uses the illustration of the potter for a reason. Israel is like the Pharaoh…they hardened themselves first and eventually God gives them over. God didn’t begin with hardening the Pharaoh heart and God did not initially blind Israel. He pleaded and pursued but when they remained stubborn and unrepentant He gave them over…just like He is said to do to men who reject, repress and replace His revelation. He begins with His revelation and later gives them over after they stubbornly remain non-responsive.

When the New Testament is speaking of and to the Jewish people and Old 11 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

Testament imagery is used in the passage we should look to the Old Testament to see where such imagery is used and see how it is being used… this will help us to understand how and why that imagery is being used in the New Testament. I believe the potter reference of Paul is meant to bring to mind the Old Testament passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah which are the original sources of the imagery wherein God describes Himself as a potter of Israel.

However, when we actually turn to those potter passages the actions of the potter are not described as arbitrary but merely as purposeful. Yes the Lord can mold the pot any way he wants but the passage in Jeremiah says He takes repentance into to account as he shapes the pot and more to the sad case of Israel he takes presumptive defiance into account as well.

Nonetheless, I think if we’re really honest we would have to admit Paul does not really answer the objector’s questions. Why not? I think he doesn’t do it because of what I said earlier… Paul will not allow man to become a judge over God. God does not answer to men!! So instead he simply asks the questioner a question: Doesn’t God have a right to do what He sees fit? Why and how God does what He does is not answered. Paul admits that God make choices…choices that are undeserved and not in any way based on merit…but he does not offer an apologetic the choices of God.

In one sense it may seem like Paul engages in a lot of double-speak without answering the question, but I think he is attempting to put the shoe on the other foot. He simply asks those who question God a question, which is basically doesn’t God have the right to be sovereign over His creation? And 12 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 who could honestly answer, “No, He has no such right!”

Romans 9:22-24 THE POTTER’S WHEEL

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Paul now applies this principle with a “what if” scenario. He does this in one long sentence that extends from Romans 9:22-24. If a potter may do what he wants with his clay, certainly God may do what He wants with His people. But let me ask you this. How could God be said to bear with patience the objects of wrath unless there is some opportunity for them to repent so that He might relent (as per the Jeremiah passage)? If God has already determined they won’t repent, because He predetermined they will never be able to repent, what is the point of His being patient? Patience typically suggests hope and opportunity…does it not? Particular when the Lord’s patience is mentioned.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. NIV

Note it says in our passage: the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction. However, in the original language the participle used here is 13 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 either in the middle voice or the indefinite passive. If Paul meant the participle to be taken in the middle voice the phrase is reflexive so a fuller translation would be “those who have been in a state of preparing themselves for destruction.”

Yet if he meant it to be taken in the indefinite passive a fuller translation would be: “those who have been in a state of being prepared for destruction (without specifying the agency doing the preparing). Note that God is specifically connected with the preparing beforehand (active voice) of the objects of mercy (the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory)-, but when it comes to the objects of wrath, one finds the indefinite passive or middle reflexive.

Now why does Paul word it that way if God is responsible for preparing them for destruction as some suggest? This same idea, of God actively preparing a place for His people, but without referring to God actively preparing a place for unbelievers in the same sense was also referred to by Jesus. Now watch this…

Matt 25:32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. NIV 14 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

Matt 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. NIV

Jesus says hell was prepared not for man, but for the devil and his angels. The Bible never says God prepares people for damnation or hell. What then operates on man to put him in a state of being made ready (prepared) for eternal destruction? Has not Paul already answered this question?

Rom 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Is this not exactly what the Pharaoh did? Did he not store up wrath against himself by his stubborn unrepentant heart? Is that not what Israel also did? In my opinion, given what Paul has already said in Romans 2, the idea that God prepares people for hell in advance is false. They have prepared themselves because of their own stubborn unrepentant heart. In other words, while everyone in heaven says, “I am here because of God” the people in hell have to say “I am here because of me.”

Romans 9:25-26

25 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them `my people' who are not my people; and I will call her `my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26 and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, then, can they call on the `You are not my people,' they will be called `sons of the living God.'" 15 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

Now we are really getting to the meat of the matter. What the objectors do not like is that God has chosen to be gracious to the Gentiles and to harden Israel. Paul quotes Hos 2:23; 1:10, passages originally addressed to the ten tribes. Hosea was told to name a son “not my people” and a daughter “not loved” (I wonder if the children had any self-esteem problems?). Paul takes this quotation from the LXX and applies it to the conversion of the Gentiles. Gentiles who were “not his people” and “not loved (i.e. chosen)” would be called sons of the living God. However, hope is not lost for all of Israel:

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality." 29 It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."

Here Paul quotes Isaiah 10:22-23 and Isaiah 1:9, which speaks of the saving of a remnant, with reference to the destruction and desolation that was coming upon the nation by Sennacherib and his army, and yet the prophecy is also understood to be looking further into the future wherein God would always spare a remnant of Israel even though a greater part of the nation would face judgment.

Romans 9:30-33 PURSUED BY GRACE OVER PURSUIT OF WORKS

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue 16 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33 As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Why did Israel not attain to righteousness? They desired it…they attempted to make themselves worthy and tragically that is exactly where they went horribly wrong. They sought not righteousness, but what did they seek? (a law of righteousness as if it were by works)

The apostle comes here at last to fix the true reason of the reception of some of the Gentiles, and the rejection of most of the Jews. There was a difference in the way they viewed Christ. To the Gentiles, Christ was the great the stepping stone, to the Jews, Christ was the great stumbling block. He concludes, “What shall we say then? What is the conclusion of the whole dispute?”

I. Concerning the Gentiles,

1. They had been alienated from God; they followed not after righteousness, they were ignorant of their guilt and misery, and therefore did not see the need to procure a remedy for their predicament. In their conversion grace is greatly magnified for you can hardly get more undeserving than that. It was grace, and grace alone that made that difference. Gentiles were receptive to grace, Jewish people were not receptive. 17 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3

II. Concerning the Jews,

1. They missed the very thing they were so ambitious to obtain. They sought after it, but not in the right way, not in the humbling way, not in the appointed way of faith. They were so determined to depend upon their own merit, they had no use for the merit of Christ. Self-reliance caused them to stumble. They could by no means be reconciled to the doctrine of Christ which suggested inability to meet the demands of any law of righteousness.

In conclusion Paul reasons, the unbelieving Jews have no reason to quarrel with God for rejecting them; they had been given more than a fair offer of salvation through these blessings, made to them through grace, which was not to their liking, and they rejected; and therefore, if they perish, they have only themselves to blame.

You may have noticed that both divine election and human choice have been referenced in this chapter and woven into what seems to us to be a hopeless contradiction. On the one hand Paul said…

Rom 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

R.C. Sproul says this verse is absolutely fatal to any concept of men choosing God. So some argue the reason for their failure is simply God did not choose for them to succeed. They were not chosen so God was not merciful to them. However, on the other hand were told when we get to 18 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 verse…

Rom 9:31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

It does not say nor is it even suggested that God withheld grace or mercy or that they did not stand because God predetermined they would stumble. They are blamed for stumbling just like Pharaoh is blamed for his stubborn heart. In other words, in this verse it does not appear they did not achieve it because God withheld mercy, but because they pursued it wrongly. Well which one is it? Did they pursue it wrongly or did God with hold mercy? God withheld mercy because they pursued it wrongly. It’s both/and not either/or. Someone once said with reference to predestination and election:

“Try to explain it and the comprehension will suffer. Explain it away and the truth will suffer.”

A pastor named Charles Simeon once addressed the controversy in this way. He said,

“As the wheel cogs on a complicated machine may move in opposite directions and yet subserve a common end, so may these truths, apparently opposite, be perfectly reconcilable with each other, and equally subserve the purposes of God in the accomplishment of man’s salvation.”

In conclusion, Paul began this chapter by affirming that God’s choices with 19 | P a g e T h e P o t t e r ’ s W h e e l - R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 - 3 3 reference to Israel were unconditional but not unlimited. He chose to work through grace because He had to…there was no other way to proceed. So He chose undeserving Abraham and later undeserving Isaac and still later undeserving Jacob. On the other hand, the potter illustration to the Jewish mind would suggest to them the imagery of Jeremiah 18 where the potter molds the clay, but the potter’s intention with the clay can change. Then he states plainly the reason they did not attain it was because they pursued it by works rather than by faith. His bottom line is that Israel cannot blame its present rejection on the purposes of God in election, but on its own prideful failure to recognize and acknowledge His elected purpose and plan in Christ. Two thousand years have passed, and men still stumble over Jesus.

They stumble because they deny they need to be saved and they fall because they will not they cannot save themselves. Grace is offensive to them and they prefer to establish their own law of righteousness. They did not want grace they wanted justice and when they eventually receive the justice they asked for they will not want it. Twice in the book of Hebrews, Psalm 95 is quoted: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts…" The author of Hebrews quotes the psalm to show why the Israelites did not enter into God’s rest. The reason was they refused to rest in faith alone, they harden their hearts and sought to find their salvation in and of themselves.

My Savior, Thou hast promised rest, O give it then to me. The rest of ceasing from myself, to find my all in Thee.

Every time I rest in Him and cease from myself my heart softens like wax and every time I resist resting my heart hardens like clay.