Home » Posts tagged 'faith' (Page 4)

Tag Archives: faith

Does Mysticism Mix With the Bible?

Mysticism pervades world history, and especially the history of the United States.  What does mysticism do for a country or a person?  Is it good?  Is it all bad?When Jonathan Edwards described mysticism in the early 18th century, he didn’t use the word “mysticism.”  The term mysticism was around, but perhaps not in the kind of common usage so that Edwards would use the term to apply to the “wildfire” and “carnal enthusiasm” he witnessed in the Great Awakening.  Edwards also wrote the terms, “imprudences, irregularities,” and a “mixture of delusion.”When the United States got to the 19th century, it was a regular experience for men to say they heard directly from God, perhaps the greatest example of this Joseph Smith.  The church history museum in Salt Lake City, Utah says concerning his “first vision”:

Joseph Smith’s First Vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.

Johann Herrmann called it “Neoplatonic Mysticism” and defined it this way in 1899:

The essence of Mysticism lies in this: when the influence of God upon the soul is sought and found solely in an inward experience of the individual; when certain excitements of the emotions are taken, with no further question, as evidence that the soul is possessed by God: when at the same time nothing external to the soul is consciously and clearly perceived and firmly grasped; when no thoughts that elevate the spiritual life are aroused by the positive contents of an idea that rules the soul,– then that is the piety of Mysticism.

Herrmann went on to write:

In the human Jesus, we have met with a fact, the content of which is comparably richer than any feelings that arise within ourselves.

James Hinton said:

Mysticism is an assertion of a knowing that must not be tried by ordinary rules evidence the claiming authority for our own impressions.

The Apostle Paul addresses mysticism in Colossians 2:18-19, when he writes:

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

Paul calls this someone “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.”
I have no doubt that everyone has experiences.  However, scripture teaches against looking for those experiences as a means of God communicating to you.  Scripture is sufficient.  The Bible gives someone everything he needs to be everything he needs to be and do everything he needs to do.
The experiences of the biblical authors were true, real, and historical.  They really occurred.  The canon was closed and the means by which God talks to us is through His Word.  Jesus quoted Abraham in saying in Luke 16:31:

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Moses and the prophets are scripture.  God wants us to depend upon scripture.  Mysticism and the Bible are mutually exclusive.  Faith pleases God (Hebrews 11:6) and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Four)

Part One   Part Two   Part Three

A Hebrew word for “repent” in the Old Testament is nocham and it’s mainly used of God.  It first appears in Genesis 6:6:  “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”  The Old Testament makes those kinds of statements several times.  Compatible with that, consider the last two verses of the Old Testament (Malachi 4:5-6):

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Elijah comes, who is John the Baptist, and preaches to Israel.  The LORD motivates Israel with His coming and smiting the earth with a curse.  If they listen, God withholds the curse.  If they don’t listen, the curse comes.  The curse may or may not come.  This is a warning.  So what happens?  A relatively few listen.  The rest are cursed.  This isn’t predetermination.  This is how the sovereignty of God works.  God does intervene with the warning and then later with the curse or punishment.

To read Malachi 4:5-6 any other way, complicating it with a wrong view of determinism, would pervert the plain meaning.  The two ideas of Genesis 6 and Malachi 4 are complimentary:  (1)  God repents of what He was going to do because of what men have done, and (2)  Men repent and God changes what He was going to do.  Both of those concepts, which are in scripture in multiple places, speak of men, including unsaved ones, having a free will.  They can make choices.

Men making choices doesn’t limit God.  God makes up the rules, His laws, and He uses the responses of men to orchestrate His will according to providence.  Man is not the determiner.  He doesn’t make the rules or the laws.  The Lord uses the wrong response by man and the right response by man both to still accomplish His purpose.

God does predetermine events.  He knows everything.  He has the power and wisdom to do whatever He wills.  His will is perfect.  Because all of this, God has free will to the greatest extent.

The Influence of Calvinism

Calvinists say, “Man doesn’t have free will, he has natural will, which is not free.”  There are many ideas behind it, but nothing in scripture backs it up.  The idea, that I read, is two main influences on the Protestant view of free will, Augustine and then later Luther’s writing, The Bondage of the Will.  The Bible will get you a certain distance toward the point of Calvinism about free will, but it doesn’t get you all the way.

Calvinism, out of what seems like desperation, crafts a title, like R. C. Sproul uses, the “humanist view of free will.”  He surmises this view is the majority view of believers, but when I read the view, I can’t imagine anyone believes it.  Is this a scientific study based on poll research?  He defines it this way:

[T]he choices we make are in no wise conditioned or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Let me say that again: this view says that we make our choices spontaneously. Nothing previous to the choice determines the choice—no prejudice, prior disposition, or prior inclination—the choice comes literally on its own as a spontaneous action by the person.

Every choice comes because of prejudice, prior disposition or inclination.  A high enough percentage thinks there is prior inclination or disposition, that I would say everyone believes that, just the opposite of what Sproul says.

The Bondage of the Will

Just because someone acts on the basis of his strongest inclination at the moment of that choice, terminology used by Jonathan Edwards in his work, Freedom of Will, does not contradict freedom of will.  An unsaved man lacks in moral ability, but there are other means by which someone can choose Jesus Christ.  He has the freedom to choose.

Romans 3:10-12 say man neither seeks after God nor understands God.  Ephesians 2:1-5 say the lost are dead.  I read though that the truth sets some free from being a slave to sin (John 8:32-36).  All these though say to me that man can’t initiate the salvation.  That’s also what I read in the Bible; we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).

Can there be spiritual death and bondage to sin and free will?  I’m writing, yes, but it’s also because it’s what I read in scripture.  If man can’t do anything, because he’s in bondage, then he’s not responsible for anything.  Yet, he is responsible.  He’s responsible because God does reveal Himself to man.  I read this in Romans 1 among other places.

When men asked Jesus in Luke 13:23, are there few that be saved?  His answer put it on man and his obvious not striving to enter into the narrow gate.  Everything fits this way.  You read the parable of the soils in Matthew 13.  Jesus starts teaching in parables so as not to harden their hearts.  A less hard heart results in greater reception to the seed.  The truth can harden a heart.  Jesus talks about four types of hearts and all of these are about reception of the truth.

The Word of God, God’s Revelation

The Word of God, God’s revelation, is the supernatural cure for spiritual death and bondage to sin.  Hebrews 4:12 says the Word of God is powerful.  It is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).

Revelation that defeats bondage and spiritual death starts with general revelation, which is general in its audience.  This is the grace of God that appears to all men (Titus 2:11).  Jesus said the truth is what sets someone free (Jn 8:32).  Determination isn’t what sets people free.  Regeneration isn’t what is said to set people free.  Jesus freed dead Lazarus from the grave with His Words (Jn 11:43).  God said, let there be light and there was light (Gen 1:3).  Paul wrote, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

Faith is not a work.  It is a gift.  Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”  It is given to believe on Christ.  2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”  These saints obtained like precious faith.

God gives faith.  God gives it by means of His revelation.  He gives it by means of the Word of God.  Without revelation and without the Word of God, someone cannot believe.  God initiates salvation.  Salvation is of the Lord.

Tension

I don’t mind the claim of “a tension.”  I think there’s a tension.  The tension comes with two possible questions.  For the Calvinist the question concerns why someone or who is predetermined to Heaven or predetermined to Hell.  For a non Calvinist at least like myself the question concerns why someone responds to God’s revelation and some don’t.  I have many verses behind the tension that I believe.  All of scripture fits that tension.  The Calvinist says something like, God is sovereign over everything and He doesn’t have to answer, like the Potter doesn’t have to answer to clay.

I can agree with the Calvinist about tension.  God can do whatever He wants, and it’s always righteous.  He’s always righteous.  We are clay and He is the Potter.  However, the Potter gives answers all over His Word.

Let’s say you’re the parent and your child asks why?  You answer, I’m your Dad, that’s why.  That’s true, but that’s not the kind of answer that we get again and again and again in scripture.

I would say that man’s will is in bondage.  Maybe I and the Calvinist agree.  Perhaps it’s just how the bondage is removed.  Scripture says that God’s revelation is the delivering agent.  Since the Calvinist believes in determinism, it seems to me that he makes up this regeneration by the Holy Spirit that precedes faith.  I’ll leave it at that.

Faith pleases God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God.  God isn’t glorified by adding something to scripture even if it’s for the purpose of glorifying God.  I’ve noticed with Calvinists today, that for apparently completely depending on God’s sovereignty, they use Finney-esque new measures to accomplish church growth.  I can listen to most Calvinists and hear them tie church growth success to human methodology.  This is where I tell them I’m more Calvinistic than the Calvinists.  I’m not trolling them.  I think it’s true.

In another ironic turn, I say, the truth shall set you free.  The Calvinistic view of free will is not biblical.  It is not the truth.  I have often heard and read Calvinists say that they just got their Calvinism from scripture.  I can’t imagine anyone reading the Bible and getting a deterministic position.  Unlike the Bible, it is conflicting and perplexing.  From the very beginning of scripture to the end, the Bible tells a story in which men make choices based on free will.

Choosing Faith or Religion Like Choosing A Wallpaper Pattern

During graduate school, for a short while I worked at a paint and wall covering store.  Of varied responsibilities, I performed the job of organizing the wallpaper books.  They filled the tops of two large tables and I kept them in some kind of order based on style.  I could at least direct someone according to the taste of a customer.

Philosopher Ernest Gellner wrote that under relativism choosing a religion is akin to choosing a wallpaper pattern.  In other words, considering faith or religion you can act on personal taste or feelings, like someone picking out a style of wallcovering.  In general, truth then doesn’t apply to faith or religion, not like the physics of airplane travel or the engineering of a bridge.

You can live in a house without wallpaper on the walls.  Wallpaper itself is a total convenience.  Are faith or religion or moral laws such a convenience?

Men have become convinced by many various ungodly means that religious knowledge, the truth as a basis for faith, is of a different, lesser quality.  First, you choose what you want to believe.  What you’ve chosen might be something different than mine.  I like something different, and it doesn’t matter that they disagree or even contradict.  People might treat scripture like it is just a vessel to conform to whatever they want, but it isn’t. However, they are doing this now.

Second, many varied religions compare in what’s important.  It’s better just to look for common ground. Everyone has free will and you won’t convince anyone by trying to force them.  These similarities, kindness, treating other people like they want to be treated, the golden rule, are what’s important.  Those are the common ground, hence the truth.  The Bible says nothing like this either.

Third, the truth is really just what you feel in your heart.  Follow your heart.  That feeling that you feel is something God wants you to know.  Are you going to deny that God doesn’t want you to know what you need to know?  God’s Word says to try these feelings, this intuition, using God’s Word.

Fourth, the very existence of so many religions says that it’s near to impossible to be certain on the truth.  So many people couldn’t all be wrong.  It’s proud to think you do know.

Fifth, two plus two equals four.  That’s knowledge.  Faith is categorically different, not knowing in the same way as math.  Math is real.  Twelve divided by three equals four.  If religion was the same as math, then you could say that you know it.  Religion, faith, has much more variation, because it isn’t so sure.  Whatever someone happens to feel or think about religious matters is as good as what anyone else says.  It’s very personal, unlike math.  Two plus two means the same thing to everyone.  Religion and faith are different, more like choosing a wallpaper pattern.

None of the reasons or explanations I’ve given here are true.  Man walks according to his own lust and his view of faith, religion, knowledge, and the truth conforms to that.  What’s real is what’s out in the world, the people he knows, his dreams, what he wants to do.  Faith and religion can be modified to fit that.  In the end though, God will still judge them to fall short of a biblical plan of salvation.

Burk Parsons tweeted yesterday (Sunday):  “Saying you’re a new kind of Christian with a new kind of Christianity is basically saying you’re an old kind of heretic.”  You can want people to include you in Christianity, but your new kind of Christianity isn’t really or truly Christian.

Not just the world, but churches today in rapidly growing fashion coddle relativism.

Is God Not Being Obvious Enough, Proof That There Is No God?

I’m not saying that God isn’t obvious, but that is a major reason in what I’ve read and heard of and for professing atheism and agnosticism.  It’s also something I’ve thought about myself.  God doesn’t go around announcing Himself in the ways people think He would if He existed.  God doesn’t show Himself in a manner that people expect.

Outside of earth’s atmosphere, space does not befriend life.  Space combats, resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth.  No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth.  Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else.

No one knows the immensity of space.  We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth.  Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets.  Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space.  That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose.  To many, they seem pointless and could not serve as depictions of God’s beauty and power and precision for such a tiny audience.

Another angle I hear relates to suffering.  God doesn’t show up to alleviate suffering to the extent people expect from a loving God.  Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war.  The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago.  Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today.

According to scripture, God is a Spirit (John 4:24), which means you can’t see Him.  John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 say, “No man hath seen God at any time.”  One reason God isn’t obvious is that no one can see Him.  That does not mean He doesn’t reveal Himself, but it is not by appearing to us.  In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us (John 1:18).  1 Samuel 3:21 says, “the LORD revealed himself.”  Romans 1:19 says, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”

God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture.  Those are not obvious to most people.  They want, what I like to call, the crown performance.  The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence.  People want more from God, but God doesn’t give that.  God deserves the crown performance.  He wears the crown.  He doesn’t give the crown performances.

Seek God

I believe there are four main reasons God isn’t as obvious as people want Him to be.  One, God wants to be sought after.  I often say that God doesn’t want the acknowledgement of His existence like we would acknowledge the existence of our right foot.  Five times scripture says, “Seek God,” twenty-seven times, “seek the Lord,” twice, “seek his face,” and thirteen times, “seek him,” speaking of God.  A good example of God’s desire here is Deuteronomy 4:29:

But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

God in His sovereignty chose to have us seek Him.  That is who He is.
The lesser seeks the greater.  Seeking God recognizes God’s greatness.  It is humble.  It is for us to say, “I want to know you,” rather than waiting on God to come to us.  I’m not saying He doesn’t come to us in the way He prescribes, but He wants us to seek Him and come to Him.  How obvious God is pertains to His wanting us to seek Him.
Pride and lust get in the way of not seeking God.  Those exalting themselves above God will not seek God.  They seek after what they exalt, which is their own lust.  Men walk after their own lust and this inhibits seeking after God.  Men serve the creature rather than the Creator.
God has done everything for us.  We’ve done nothing for Him.  It should be us seeking Him.  It must be.

Believe God

Faith pleases God.  The way God reveals Himself requires faith from men.  Faith is not be sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).  When we see God, it won’t be faith any more.  Paul wrote that faith wasn’t eternal (1 Corinthians 13).  Faith occurs in this age.  The way God reveals Himself is good enough for the one who believes.  Only the one who believes receives eternal life with God (John 3:15,16,36).
Far few believe than do not believe.  Most men operate by sight.  The degree and manner God reveals Himself is not good enough for them.  Out of pride and lust, they require more.  Even if they got more, it wouldn’t be good enough for them.  They are not willing to deny themselves (Luke 9:23).
The heroes of the faith, like those in Hebrews 11, obeyed not having seen.  Consider these verses in Hebrews 11 related to this matter of sight:
Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:7, By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Hebrews 11:13, These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Abraham went to the Promised Land, not having seen it.  Hebrews 11:8 says “he went out, not knowing where he was going.”  This was blind obedience.
God wants us believing and obeying because He said it.  Jesus said in Matthew 12:39, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.”  Signs are God showing more evidence.  People surmise that God isn’t being obvious enough.   They want more, so they hold Him hostage to giving more, or they won’t believe or obey.

Men Rebel

The third reason God isn’t as obvious as people expect corresponds to their sin and rebellion.  Man’s problem relates to how God gets him His message.  Man gets the understanding of God through revelation, because his problem is sin and rebellion.  Man can’t discover, which is a natural pursuit.  God reveals, which is a supernatural solution.
Romans 1:18 says that men “hold the truth in unrighteousness.”  Many of you know that “hold the truth” means “suppress the truth.”  Men’s unrighteousness makes them suppress the truth.  The problem is not an intellectual one, one that says it needs more proof.   The problem is a volitional one, men are rebellious, which requires a supernatural solution.  The Bible is that solution.  It is divine.  It is powerful (Hebrews 4:12).
Man’s problem of rebellion necessitates God’s revelation as the solution, not God being more obvious.  Men don’t know this without God telling them, but even if they got more evidence, the kind they thought they needed, they wouldn’t take it. They think they would take it, but God says they wouldn’t.
Scripture reveals eras of miracles.  When miracles were given, the “obvious proof,” the crown performance, men were not persuaded.  God uses the weak things of the world, Paul writes (1 Corinthians 1:27), which describes the gospel.  The gospel isn’t weak.  It’s just weak to men.  The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.  When it works to save men, God also gets the glory for it (1 Corinthians 1:31).

God’s Glory

I’m adding this fourth reason because the way God works results in His glory.  He uses a means that doesn’t glorify men, but glorifies Him.  Man is helpless, so God uses a means that man wouldn’t use.  Man would be more obvious.  God does what in the end will glorify Him.  No man will say he got saved because he was clever.  It requires no cleverness.  God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6).

Justification In Job, pt. 2

Part One

Justification by faith is both an Old Testament and a New Testament doctrine.  It reads like a major theme in the book of Job, the oldest Old Testament book.  Job’s friends speak to him about justification and Job answers about justification.  Is Job justified?

A related aspect to justification is a common Old Testament Hebrew word, mishpot, translated “judgment.”  Forms of mishpot occur 23 times in Job.  “Judgment” and “righteousness” both have been assessed as the theme of the entire Bible.  I can’t disagree with either assessment.  Over ten years ago I read a book by James Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology, which proposed judgment as the subject of all of scripture.  Men are judged by God as to whether they are righteous.  He judges a man righteous, who is justified.  Men also judge other men as to their justification, which is what Job’s friends were doing.

Judgment, mishpot, by God is based upon His righteous nature and standard or law.  A popular recent, contemporary concept is “authenticity” or “authentic.”  Job was authentic, and the normal or plain understanding of authentic has been based upon an objective standard, so outside of one’s own self.  Self-authenticity is a kind of oxymoron.  Just because you’re consistent with your own understanding of who you are doesn’t make you authentic.  Naugahyde couldn’t be said to be authentic.  Leather is.  And one can judge leather by an objective standard.  It was at one time the outer layer or skin of an animal.

Was Job justified?  Was he an authentic righteous man?  He, his friends, and finally God have this discussion.  Satan said he wasn’t.  God said he was.  So what is it?

One of Job’s friends, Zophar, starts his speech in chapter 11, asking and using the ninth of twenty-eight usages of a form of the Hebrew verb form tsadek (v. 2):

Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?

Zophar insinuates overt loquaciousness of Job, implying Job’s justification of himself with his words.  Zophar is suggesting that rather than the words of Job justifying him, it be the consequences of his actions.  In other words, someone facing the hardship of Job couldn’t be righteous.  In weighing Job’s talk against the gravity of his situation, Zophar infers that the latter condemns him.  However, Job’s guilt or righteousness could not be judged by the circumstances of his life.  Job has been arguing against the false conclusion that his trials evidenced unrighteousness.

In a second chapter of Job’s answer to Zophar in Job 13:18, he says:

Behold now, I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified.

Matthew Henry asserts that Job could say, “I shall be justified,” not because of his works, but because he knew that his “Redeemer liveth” (19:25).  Job knew himself to be sincere in his faith in God, to lay hold on the justifying righteousness of his Redeemer, not a justifying righteousness in his own works.
Job had ordered his cause, that is, he had looked thoroughly over all that was occurring, and he says, “I know.”  Certainty of justification comes from faith in the Lord, not in self.  Paul commanded (2 Cor 13:5), examine yourself whether ye be in the faith.  The trials of life necessitate reviewing our lives for the assurances of salvation.  Job did.
Later, Eliphaz confronts Job in 15:12-16:

12 Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at, 13 That thou turnest thy spirit against God, and lettest such words go out of thy mouth? 14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (tsadek)? 15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

In general, his words ring true.  “What is man, . . . which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (tsadek)?”  This conflict exists.  In his natural state, no man is just, and yet Job is righteous.  A man drinks iniquity like water, so how could he be justified before God?  Only by faith.  God can make an unclean thing into a clean thing.
Eliphaz then asks Job (22:3):

Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous (tsadek)? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?

It’s a rhetorical question with the implied negative answer, which is false.  God does take pleasure in Job’s righteousness, which the first verse of Job (1:1) states.  God has no pleasure in self-righteousness, but Job was a righteous man on account of God.  Even Job’s friends knew he was righteous.
Bildad asks Job in 25:4-6:

4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

Job was not justifying himself before God.  Job knew that he was not justified by His own righteousness but by the imputed righteousness of God.  Isaac Watts asks in his hymn, At the Cross, in the first stanza:
Alas! and did my Savior bleed?
And did my Sov’reign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
Surely, Watts thought of Bildad’s words and Job would have been familiar with a necessary sacrifice for his own sins, resulting in a gracious provision of righteousness.
Job answers in 27:5-6, using tsadek twice, once translated “justify” and the other “righteousness”:

5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. 6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.

Satan would tempt a righteous man to doubt.  Paul said, put on the helmet of salvation (Eph 6:17), for one because Satan wants men struggling in their minds in their spiritual warfare.  Job would not be swayed against the knowledge of salvation.  He was putting on his helmet.  He would hold fast, which is a standing in grace.  Job would not justify his accusers by accrediting their denunciations of him.  He does so in the same spirit that Paul later writes in Romans 8:33:

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

In his defense in 29:14, Job says:

I put on righteousness (tsadek), and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem.

Paul later writes in Ephesians 4:24, “Put on the new man.”  This isn’t salvation language.  This the breastplate of righteousness of Ephesians 6.  Saving, justifying righteousness, no one puts that on.  Sanctifying righteousness, someone must put on.  That’s the righteousness that people see in your life, that Job put on.
When Job talked about how he lived a righteous life in Job 31, he requested (verse 6):

Let me be weighed in an even (tsadek) balance, that God may know mine integrity.

Rather than the unjust scales of his friends, Job wanted God to judge his righteousness by his own.  He trusted God’s judgment.  It’s easy for any of us to put our thumb on the scale in our judgment of others, but God is just in his dealings.
After Job’s long speech of the previous chapters, Job 32:2 says of Elihu:

Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified (tsadek) himself rather than God.

Elihu thought Job to put greater efforts to justify himself than He did God, that is, Job should have been exalting God’s rightful judgment of him rather than his own righteousness.  This is the first speech of Elihu and he, as a younger man, had waited through all of the speeches of both Job and his friends to bring his own observations of this matter of Job.  Elihu spends more time confronting Job’s friends, but he accuses Job of putting less energy into defending God as he did himself.  This criticism of Elihu is worth consideration.
Elihu does not call Job an unjust man.  He speaks of this one violation, that Job was unjust in this one action of his defense.  He continues this in the next chapter (33), especially observing verses 12 and 32, which contain the word, tsadek:

12 Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. . . . . 32 If thou hast any thing to say, answer me: speak, for I desire to justify thee.

In this one thing, Elihu says Job was not just, the action of Job in the repeated contention of his own innocence without the accompanying advocacy of God.  Elihu does not speak to condemn Job, but to justify him.  Righteous men struggle against sin too (cf. Romans 7:18-25).
As Elihu continues in chapter 34, as best he could he recounts Job’s words in verse 5:

For Job hath said, I am righteous (tsadek): and God hath taken away my judgment.

His representation of Job is that Job contends for his own righteousness and accuses God to have taken away his ability to defend himself.  Even though he was just, God wasn’t vindicating Job with His treatment of him, a false charge.
In Job 35:2 and 7, Elihu uses tsadek again toward Job:

2 Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness (tsadek) is more than God’s?  . . . . 7 If thou be righteous (tsadek), what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?

Elihu is asking Job whether by Job’s defending himself more than God, he was not guilty of saying that his righteousness is more than God’s?  If Job was really righteous, which is not Elihu saying that Job isn’t, what was Job giving God compared to what Job had received from God?  It’s a good argument.  Shouldn’t a righteous man, which Job was, be defending God more than himself?
In Job 36:3, Elihu continues with Job:

I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness (tsadek) to my Maker.

Elihu compares himself with Job.  Rather than ascribe righteousness to himself, he does that to God, his Maker.  It is more of the same line of criticism of Job by Elihu.
Elihu differed with Job’s other friends in their judgment (mishpot) of Job.  Elihu uses this word nine times in his speech between Job 34-36.  I commiserate with Job at least in his experience of judgment.  The Apostle Paul was judged by false teachers and defended himself (2 Corinthians and Galatians). Job defended himself too, but it is fair for anyone who is judged to consider how much defending he does in comparison to how much his exaltation of God.
The last usage of tsadek in Job is in Job 40:8, as is the last usage of mishpot, judgment, dovetailing the two.

Wilt thou also disannul my judgment (mishpot)? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous (tsadek)?

Of all of the uses of tsadek, this is the only used by God Himself, and He is speaking to Job.  God expresses His concern for Job’s communication of unjust treatment of himself by God.  Rather than attempting to clear his self, He should defend God.  Whatever God is doing, it is right.  God has something to say about how Job has been talking about all he’s gone through.
Despite all that Job said, in the end God came down on his side against that of his friends.  Job 42:7 says,

And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Job said some things wrong, but God judges him in general as saying what was right, that is, Job was righteous.  The friends were wrong about that.  The word “right” in this verse means “the truth,” that Job was telling the truth and they weren’t.  Verse 9 says that God accepted Job and not Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.  He leaves out Elihu.
Job was justified before God, not because of his works, but because of the righteousness that was imputed to him by faith.

Justification In Job, pt. 1

When someone thinks of Job, the book of Job from the Old Testament of the Bible, maybe he doesn’t think of “justification.”  I’ve taught through the whole book twice, once fast and the second fairly slowly.  Recently I was reading through it the second time this year, moving through the Bible twice in this year, and the word, “justify,” stuck out this time to me.

When I taught slowly through Job, I taught the theme was the security of God.  God kept Job.  Job passed the test because of God.  I taught that Job was about God and what He did, not about the person, Job.  When we look at the names of the books of the Bible, we can think about the men of the Bible.  However, the whole Bible is about God.

The Hebrew word, tsadek, that is translated, “just” or the forms of it, “justify,” “justified,” etc. is found at least twenty-eight times in Job.  In this post or maybe a series of two of them, I want to look at all of those usages and how they fit into the book of Job.  The word refers to something that is according to a standard that is of the nature and the will of God, so it is just, right, or righteous.  It doesn’t fall short of the glory of God.  The word applies to God.  The standard for right or righteousness is God.  Whether someone is righteous or just compares to God, not a human standard.

A big part of Job is whether Job is right with God.  You could ask, Is he saved?  To be saved, you have to stand before God as righteous.  Apparently, Job was righteous, but not according to everyone.  How righteous did he need to be?  Whatever trials he went through, was it because he was not righteous or because he was?  These are important questions.  Everyone needs to think about them still.  Here’s a last one.  If God is the standard, His righteousness, how is Job or anyone else to be justified before God?  This brings in the doctrine of justification.  How is someone justified?  Churches and religions differ as to the answers to these questions, and there is only one right answer.

I’m going to assume that you know, that in the story of Job (chapters 1-2), he is put through one of the most difficult trials ever for any human being in all history, losing all his children, his wealth, and his health.  God allows Satan to put Job through this test to prove whether he’s really a righteous man.  Satan says, no.  God says, yes.  While going through these severe circumstances, certain so-called friends of Job give him speeches, also casting doubt on his righteousness.

In Job 4, one of the friends, Eliphaz, talks to Job and argues essentially that people go through things like Job out of judgment for their sin.  It had to be his sin.  As further evidence, Eliphaz recounts in verses 12-16 that a spirit had given him (we know none sent by God gave him the message) the following message (verse 17), which is also the first usage of tsadek in the book of Job:

Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?

It’s the word, “just.”  Through the use of these questions, the message to Job is that he shouldn’t be justifying himself before God.  Even though no angelic spirit communicated or even would communicate those questions to Eliphaz — you can’t be more just than God — it introduces the subject matter.

Job speaks in Job 6 and says in verse 29:

Return, I pray you, let it not be iniquity; yea, return again, my righteousness is in it.

Job is saying to the friend, back away from this conclusion you’re making that iniquity is the cause of my suffering, and come back to righteousness as the reason.  Job isn’t saying that he is justified as righteous before God, but righteous in particular as related to the reason behind these trials.  Between iniquity and righteousness, these circumstances for Job are not due to iniquity.
In chapter 8, Bildad confronts Job with an accusation common to the book.  In verse 3, he uses tsadek in application to God, asking, “Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?”  “Justice” translates the form of the word.  He continues in verse 6:

If thou wert pure and upright; surely now he would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous.

Bildad concludes that God would have made the habitation of Job prosperous if he were righteous.  It does sound like Bildad may have believed in justification by works too.  God “would awake,” respond to Job with tangible rewards, if he were “pure and upright.”  It’s actually the opposite, we don’t wake God up.  He wakes us up.
Job answers Bildad in the next two chapters (9-10), and deals with this theme of justification in four of the verses.  Verse 2 is classic:

I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God?

What Job knows is a truth is that God is just, so God couldn’t be unjust to him or anyone else.  Job’s rhetorical question says that through anything that a man could do on his own or by himself, he could not be just with God.  Any man on his own or according to his own merits, could not stand before God as just.
Job says in verse 15:

Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge.

Even if Job were righteous, he would not argue with God about it.  When God accused him of some sin, he wouldn’t answer.  Instead, he would make supplication, which is to ask for grace or mercy.  Job knows he’s not worthy before God.  His justification can’t be by works, but by grace, depending on God for justification.
Job continues in verse 20:

If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

If he used his mouth to justify himself, his mouth would be condemning him.  He would by lying.  A mouth justifying self is a sinful one.  Saying you are perfect just proves you to be perverse.  He would be saying that in him is no sin, which is false.  Even if he were righteous, Job says in 10:15:

If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction.

He would not lift up his head, that is, be proud about it.  Abraham could not glory in his righteousness, because it was not by works (Romans 4:1-5).  The Apostle Paul, as a genuine believer, would glory or boast in Christ Jesus, putting no confidence in the flesh (Philip 3:3). Job would know that whatever righteousness he had, it wasn’t because of him.  It was nothing to be proud of.  He wouldn’t want to take credit for it.
The word “confusion” is the reproach or shame that Job feels, especially at the accusations of his friends.  Rather than continuing to lay on him more pummeling, he’s asking that they see his affliction.  Show some sympathy.  He’s going through enough without their further hurtful words about him.
(To Be Continued)

Cosmology, the Big Bang, and the Creation Description in Isaiah 40:22

See This Post As a Part One

Cosmology is not a degree in cosmetics, even though distantly related; it means “the science of the origin and development of the universe.”  Kosmos is the Greek word for “world.”  All forms of that Greek word are found 187 times in the New Testament, translated, “world.”  With this in mind, I ask you to consider Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 (also Is 42:5, 44:24; Jer 10:12, 51:15) :

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Scientists look at space, “the heavens,” and what they see there looks, acts, and interacts like Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 describe.  If you start with what you see, the physical universe, you would say that Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 describe it.  How did Isaiah know?  He didn’t have the information that modern day astronomers and physicists possess.  He didn’t own a telescope.  However, I will say that he had the information.  It was given to him by God, because God stretched out the heavens as a curtain.

Scientists see an effect that is what Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 describe, but with a naturalistic presupposition or bias, the Big Bang as the hypothesis.  All the scientists see is the effect.  There is no proof a big bang occurred.  Before the Big Bang theory, Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 were written.  However, supernaturalism answers all the questions, connects all the dots.

The language of “stretcheth out the heavens” in Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 affirm an expanding universe. It is from a Hebrew term, which was used in tentmaking.  If any of you have erected a tent, you know that part of the process is stretching out or expanding outward the tent material. If creation is treated as a hypothesis or theory, there is epistemic support in the beginning of a finite, expanding universe.   Concerning the big bang, the physicist who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of cosmic background radiation, Arno Penzias, said:

The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.

I like to compare what we see to walking on to a crime scene.  No one but the one who committed the crime knows what happens.  Everyone else is looking at the same evidence.  No one is neutral.  With the science, a creationist still approaches the physical evidence like a scientist.

One illustration I’ve read is a wet car in the drive way.  Why is it wet?  It’s wet, but the road is dry.  The sky is blue.  Not only that, but a bucket with a wet sponge sets beside the car on the driveway.

The more evidence we get, the more clues we have, the better or the more likely the explanation of divine creation.  It doesn’t get easier to give a naturalistic explanation.

John 1:9-13 Say That Faith Precedes Regeneration

Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), meaning that it is not by works (Titus 3:5-6)  It is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).  It is a gift of God (Romans 6:23).

Faith is not a work.  The following are my two favorite places that teach that:

Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”

2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

First, it is given unto you to believe on Christ.  Second, people obtain like precious faith.  Salvation is by faith, not by works.  If faith was a work, that wouldn’t make any sense.

How does someone obtain faith from God?  It starts with revelation.  What is to be known of God is manifest in people (Romans 1:19) and then clearly seen in creation (Romans 1:20), which is general revelation (Psalm 19:1-6).  Next comes special revelation, the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11).  As Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”  This fulfills the message of Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.”  What I’m describing in this paragraph is what precedes faith.  Much more could be said on this.  The revelation of God is the grace that appears to everyone that gives faith that people obtain to be saved.

With all that said, here is John 1:9-13:

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Becoming a child of God and regeneration are essentially the same thing.  Look at verse 12.  Which comes first?  Receiving Jesus Christ or becoming a son of God?  It’s plain.  What comes before receiving Him?  Look at verse 9.  “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”  I know that Calvinists or the Reformed, not all of them, but many, say that regeneration precedes faith.

The idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from scripture.  Why is that doctrine taught and believed then?  In my opinion, it is a man-centered reaction to salvation by works.  A metaphor for this is a pendulum swing.  We’re not saved by works like Roman Catholicism and other religion teaches.  The light coming, revelation producing faith, that isn’t good enough.  They’ve got to go one step further to show how salvation does not depend on man.  They are men and they have invented this doctrine though.  The doctrine depends on them.

I’m writing on this because I read the article by Andy Naselli, published in the Master’s Seminary Journal, entitled, “Chosen, Born Again, and Believing:  How Election, Regeneration, and Faith Relate to Each Other in the Gospel According to John.”  Long title.  Does Naselli get his position from the passages or does he come to the passages with his presupposition?  You can read his section on John 1:9-13, the first one.  He comes to the text with assumptions and forces the text into them.  Naselli says that this text does not say that faith causes the new birth.  He says “being born of God [is] logically prior to receiving Jesus.”  Is that what you read?

If faith comes from the light, that means it comes from God.  If faith comes from the Word of God, then it comes from God.  If faith comes after the knowledge that manifests in people, then it comes from God.  Faith does not require or need regeneration in order to be from or of God.  Faith does not come by blood, by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man, because faith is given by God and obtained from God.  It is not a work.

Naselli doesn’t say it, but I’ve read enough elsewhere to know.  Many Calvinists cannot say that faith precedes regeneration, because they see faith as a decision or a choice.  You can read that in his article.  He says, “The basis of the new birth is not . . . what you desired.”  He is equating faith with the “act of a human.”  He is saying that faith is our will and since the new birth or regeneration does not come “by the will of man,” then it also cannot come by faith.  The problem is that isn’t what the passage point-blank says.

Is the teaching of Naselli and others like him enough to mess up the doctrine of salvation?  It is perverting what the passage says.  What kind of damage is this teaching doing?  It can lead to an extreme where someone does not want to receive Christ, delays receiving Christ, because he is waiting for regeneration.  I’ve seen that many times through the years.  I’m saying I’ve seen it personally over twenty times with individuals with whom I’ve talked.

I agree with some that this doctrine from Naselli affects what people think of the love of God.  God must regenerate to believe.  If someone does not believe, then God did not regenerate.  This person did not apparently receive irresistible grace, Christ did not atone for him.  God foreordained him to Hell.  If scripture taught this was the love of God, I would happily believe it.  It isn’t what the Bible says is the love of God.  It also isn’t what grace is.  The grace that saves appears to all men.

Yes, there is a mystery as to why some are saved and some are not.  The mystery for the Calvinist is why God chooses some and He rejects others before they were ever born.  The mystery for others, like myself, is why some receive Christ and others don’t.  The latter at least has some teaching about that.  Jesus says that it’s the condition of the soil in Matthew 13.  Paul says that the god of this world blinds men’s minds (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Naselli teaches at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minnesota, John Piper’s school.  I’ve read John Piper’s explanation of the five points of Calvin.  The word “decisive” is a very important word to him.  What I’m saying, Piper would say is the sinner, assisted by God, providing the decisive impulse.  He would say, I’m saying, that “the decisive cause of faith is self-determination.”  Scripture says nothing about “decisive cause.”

As I’ve written about this subject in the past, I’ve said that God is sovereign about His own sovereignty.  We can’t make God more sovereign than what He says He is.  John 1:9-13 as it reads in its plain meaning does not contradict a scriptural understanding of the sovereignty of God.  It does not make salvation by works.  Piper adds this layer of “decisive cause,” and in that sense is adding to the teaching of scripture.  He speaks where scripture is silent.  He reads into the text.  This is also what Naselli is doing.  Naselli fills in the blank by quoting Calvin, writing:

Faith is not produced by us but is the fruit of spiritual new birth.

Then Naselli fills in this silence even more by quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

The act of regeneration, being God’s act, is something that is outside consciousness.

Do you understand what he’s saying?  He’s saying that a person becomes a child of God outside of his own consciousness.  Is that what John 1:9-13 say?  Of course not.

*********************************

I was fine with the ending of this post, especially time-wise.  However, since I wrote it, other thoughts came, especially as it related to regeneration outside consciousness.  You go evangelizing in obedience to the command of Jesus Christ.  You do your best.  No one is saved.  Why?  None of the preaching audience was regenerated outside of their consciousness.  Obviously, if God had regenerated any of them outside of their consciousness, they would have believed.

I read a book about evangelizing Mormons, entitled I Love Mormons, and the PhD evangelical who wrote it gives a lot of strategy related to success with Mormons, understanding their culture, knowing their doctrine, taking a proper approach, etc.  I’m not saying I even agree with him on all of it, but isn’t the key for success that God arbitrarily regenerates outside of their consciousness?  If God does, your Mormon evangelism can’t but succeed.  Automatic success.  How does loving Mormons affect unconscious regeneration?  Not at all, because that would make man a decisive cause of faith.  I’m sure many passages come to your mind that do not fit this thinking.

The Big Bang Didn’t Happen But It’s A Useful Hypothesis

The universe started with a big bang, but not a Big Bang.  It will end with a Big Bang though.  The following line didn’t originate with me, but I still like to say, “I believe in the Big Bang; it just hasn’t happened yet.”  It’s a laugh line.

The science world talks about the Big Bang theory.  It’s big to them.  That world says that this event occurred about 14 billion years ago.  Not quite 14 billion.  I understand that timeline to grate on believers, a finger-nails on chalkboard effect that makes them deny it loud and vehemently.  And then scientists add that ‘life began 600 million years ago’ and ‘humans one million years.’  The Bible contradicts all this.  It might gnaw at you.  I understand.  For me now, when someone mentions Big Bang, it doesn’t bother me so much.
When I hear Big Bang now, I think of a couple of different ideas, true ones.  To start, if I hear Big Bang, I exchange it in my head for creation.  Big Bang equals creation.  That’s not what the scientists think.  It’s what I think.  I’m also not saying that God used a Big Bang or something like that.  Stay with me.
The Big Bang Hypothesis is science that says that the universe had a beginning.  What’s considered to be the best science right now, the best explanation of cosmology, the Big Bang Hypothesis or Theory, admits that the material universe does not go back interminably.  There must have been a beginning, had to be.  The scientific proof behind the Big Bang hypothesis says that everything began with a Big Bang.
Okay.  The universe had to begin.  That is what happened.  When the scientists look at the evidence, they see the movement of everything outward, starting with what they call a singularity and then a very rapid expansion, which means it all came from some beginning point.  It had to.  There are more technicalities to that explanation, which complement it, but that’s the gist of it.
If you then open your Bible to Genesis 1, you see that the essence of a Big Bang did occur at the beginning.  Scientists vary on calling the singularity, the beginning, either an expansion or an explosion.  Whatever they want to call it, it was an explosion.  Some call it one, saying that “an extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward.”  The hypothesis or theory says that there was cosmic inflation and the hot universe expanded exponentially, but decreased in density and cooled in temperature, which then slowed everything down.
The Big Bang says the explosion sent matter on an outward trajectory.  Genesis 1 says that all matter, “earth,” was also altogether in one mass without form and void, including waters, until the addition of energy, described as the Spirit of God moving.  The Hebrew word “moved” in Genesis 1:2 has the understanding of “vibrated.”  Energy waves start with vibration.  The energy is God or the power His omnipotence.
The Big Bang is a hypothesis based on the evidence.  It must have been an explosion.  But how and why did the explosion take place?  Where did the energy come from?  The hypothesis doesn’t provide the answers.  It’s got other problems too, because there is too much organization, precision, and fine tuning for an explosion as an explanation, even if they want to call it a very hot, rapid expansion.  It’s why they won’t use the word explosion.  Even though it was first called a big bang, now many say there was no bang, just a vast, rapid expansion of extremely condensed material.  The technical definition of explosion still though is “a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave,” so same thing.
To fit or correspond to the known universe, the beginning must have been from great intelligence, power, immensity, beauty, love, and wisdom, which fits a description only that goes along with the God of the Bible.  The Big Bang Theory offers some kind of power, that is unexplained, some kind of cosmic accident.  It doesn’t tell us where the power or even the matter that exploded came from.  Physicists and astronomers look at the results and with a naturalist presupposition, they hypothesize the Big Bang.  It isn’t science.
If you have a naturalistic universe, which was caused by another natural thing, you haven’t explained the origin.  You’ve got to have an explanation for the natural thing that originated the natural thing, which doesn’t provide the intelligence, power, and other factors necessary for such an origin.  The major questions remain unanswered.  A natural thing originating another natural thing by accident is philosophical.  It isn’t scientific.  It doesn’t explain such an outcome either cosmologically or biologically.
The scientist asks about time, how long the original material that exploded took to get where it is now.  The first cause must be supernatural and uncaused, so time isn’t an issue.  That first cause is all powerful.  Time doesn’t have to be a consideration.  I wrote recently about the age of the fish and bread with which Jesus fed to the 5,000.  There was no process.  The fish and bread appeared instantly.  The time aspect is another attempt to divert to a naturalistic explanation.  It’s philosophical, not scientific.
The Big Bang didn’t happen, but when someone talks about it, you at least understand the theory based on the information relied upon.  It’s getting back to a beginning.  This isn’t good enough, but it is scientists dealing with the truth of a beginning.  That’s at least a starting point.  That’s a truth that we can work with, when we want to talk about God to the world.

“Know For a Certainty,” As Seen in the Old Testament, Especially Joshua 23:13-14 and the Hebrew Idiom There, and Its Relevance to Today

While reading through the Bible a second time this year, I came across Joshua 23:13:

Know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you.

In a day of uncertainty, where we are challenged to say that we “know” anything for sure, here is a strong statement at the beginning of the verse, something the audience should “know for a certainty” that would happen in the future.  This could be considered a doctrine of its own, because how could anyone “know for a certainty” something is going to happen or not going to happen in the future?  I decided to look at the Hebrew behind this English translation to see what the words were.

“Know for a certainty” translates a Hebrew idiom, where the same Hebrew word is used back to back, and in this case it is yawda (my transliteration).  Yawda and yawda, the same Hebrew root, appear side by side.  The first form is yaw-doe-a (my transliteration), which is a qal infinitive absolute verb, and the second is te-də-oo´ (my transliteration), a qal imperfect, second person, masculine, plural verb.  Literally, the two words together say, “Knowing, ye will know.”  The sense of those two words in the English is “know for a certainty.”

In 1933, Charles Eugene Edwards wrote a journal article about the above Hebrew idiom construction in Bibliotheca Sacra, entitled, “A Hebrew Idiom.”  The first paragraph of that journal article reads [BSac 90:358 (Apr 1933) p. 232]:

In his commentary on Matthew, D. J. A. Alexander refers to a Hebrew idiom (p. 408) “which combines a finite tense and an infinitive of the same verb to express intensity, repetition, certainty, or any other accessory notion not belonging to the essential import of the verb itself”. An illustration is in Is. 6:9, which is more literally quoted in Matt. 13:14, “Hearing ye shall hear”, and “seeing ye shall see”. And Dr. Alexander remarks, (p. 358) “The Hebrew idiom is retained, which uses two forms of the same verb for intensity or more exact specification”. Too literal a translation might sometimes be barbarous or absurd. For example, Joseph never meant to say (Gen. 40:15) “For stealing I was stolen but as it is properly rendered, “For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews”.

The repetition of the same word brings intensity.  For the verb “know,” bringing intensity to “know” is “certainty” or “surety.”  That idiom of that exact Hebrew verb in Joshua 23:13 is found thirteen times in the Old Testament.  For your reference, here are those twelve usages underlined in the King James Version, minus Joshua 23:13:

Genesis 15:13, And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Genesis 43:7, And they said, The man asked us straitly of our state, and of our kindred, saying, Is your father yet alive? have ye another brother? and we told him according to the tenor of these words: could we certainly know that he would say, Bring your brother down?

1 Samuel 20:3, And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.

1 Samuel 20:9, And Jonathan said, Far be it from thee: for if I knew certainly that evil were determined by my father to come upon thee, then would not I tell it thee?

1 Samuel 28:1, And it came to pass in those days, that the Philistines gathered their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said unto David, Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go out with me to battle, thou and thy men.

1 Kings 2:37, For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

1 Kings 2:42, And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good.

Proverbs 27:23, Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds.

Jeremiah 26:15, But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the LORD hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.

Jeremiah 40:14, And said unto him, Dost thou certainly know that Baalis the king of the Ammonites hath sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to slay thee? But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam believed them not.

Jeremiah 42:19 The LORD hath said concerning you, O ye remnant of Judah; Go ye not into Egypt: know certainly that I have admonished you this day.

Jeremiah 42:22, Now therefore know certainly that ye shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, in the place whither ye desire to go and to sojourn.

Joshua in his speech to gathered Israel uses the same Hebrew verb in Joshua 23:14, the next verse:

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.

Looking at the usage of the verb in verse 13 and then in verse 14, the understanding is that they should know with certainty about their futures and that they already do know in the present.  They should know what’s going to occur in the future with certainty partly because they already know in the present.  What they know in the present in their hearts and in their souls, an expression that also brings intensity to knowing, is that not one thing failed of all the good things which the Lord their God spoke concerning them.  If they know that in the present, then they know with certainty also what God says to them through Joshua for their future.

Nothing is more sure than the Word of God.  It is so sure that the knowledge is certain.  If God says it, it is certain.  This certain knowledge could be and should be called, the truth.  It is the truth.  Any contradiction to it is a lie.  Today it could and should also at least be called, “science.”  God created all natural laws and He spoke all moral law.  They are both all true, knowledge, and scientific.

Uncertainty is a tool of Satan from the very beginning of time.  Satan’s temptation of Eve created uncertainty about what God said.  The uncertainty relates to the human will, giving a person liberty where he doesn’t have it.  The uncertainty about what God said gave Eve what she thought was liberty to eat.  Maybe she wouldn’t die if she ate of the tree.  Maybe God was doing something other than what He said.

The liberty created by uncertainty is a confusion of sovereignty.  Who is sovereign?  Or, who is the true or actual sovereign in the world?  Sovereignty shifts from God to man.  If I can’t be sure of what God said, then I am free to do what I want to do.  God can’t hold me responsible for something I couldn’t know.  This conflicts with faith that pleases God.  God isn’t pleased by the uncertainty that fuels unbelief and disobedience.  He wants us to be sure.

In Joshua 23:14, Joshua says, you already know.  This is a presupposition.  The Apostle Paul uses the same presupposition in Romans 1:18-20:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Not knowing, being uncertain, is an excuse.  It isn’t a valid excuse.  It allows for a wide range of possibilities for men.  Anticipating that excuse, in Deuteronomy God takes a preemptive strike after repeating His law to the people Israel through Moses (30:11-14):

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Today people will say either the Bible was written by men, it isn’t preserved in a perfect way, or it can’t be understood because of the centuries of separation from its original writing.  The will of God then becomes very pliable, very adaptable to the will of man.  He won’t be challenged by authority because there is none.  He gets to do what he wants with uncertainty as his premise.  This is a lie, just like it was in the Garden of Eden.  Don’t think that you are free to go your own way because you can’t know the truth.  God’s Word is true.  Know with certainty.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives