Home » Posts tagged 'knowledge'
Tag Archives: knowledge
Scripture Is Science
Science
The English word “science” occurs only once in the New Testament, referring to “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20). What is often called “science” really is “science falsely so-called.” What is science? Merriam-Webster online gives the following definitions:
1 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
4 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
“Science” translates gnosis in the King James Version, a Greek word that appears 29 times in the Greek Textus Receptus. Every other time, the KJV translators translated it “knowledge.” The English word “science” comes from the Latin scire, “to know,” and so science lays claim to knowledge. That doesn’t clash with definitions that I see for science in Merriam Webster, unless someone wanted to get more technical. I’m especially talking about the definition that includes obtaining and testing something with the scientific method.
Scripture Is Scientific?
In an earlier piece, I wrote, “Scripture is scientific.” After a friend challenged me, I changed that to, “Scripture is science.” I’m not sure I would want to call scripture, scientific, because that means something different. That is based on the principles and methods of science, which I don’t think is true of scripture.
One usage of gnosis is Colossians 2:3, which speaks of Jesus Christ, saying: “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul reveals that all the treasures of knowledge are in Jesus. Obviously Jesus knows everything, all mysteries and all knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:2). When we listen to Jesus, and He says nothing in scripture about something, it is less important than other knowledge. He still knows it all and gives whatever someone needs.
Is observation or the testing of the scientific method the only way of knowing what we know? Someone might challenge the Genesis account of creation as science, because it isn’t observable or testable. In that way, scripture isn’t scientific. However, if science is knowledge, can we say we know the origin of everything? I’m not saying, believe it, but know it. We do know it from reading Genesis 1. Scripture is science.
The Hearing of Faith
Scripture says a lot of “I know,” “we know,” and “ye know.” What scripture calls the “hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:2, 5) is knowledge. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Scripture is the superior means of knowledge and the basis of faith. What God says in His Word is always true. What God says, we know, because it is true. He wants us to believe what we know from scripture, and belief comes after knowing.
Abraham questioned God’s covenant because he and Sarah were childless and old. God reaffirmed His promise in Genesis 15:4-5, and Abraham “believed in the LORD” (Genesis 15:6). God “counted it to him for righteousness.” God promised, “I will make of thee a great nation” (Genesis 12:2) and “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).
Abraham questioned God in Genesis 15:1-2 because his empirical “knowledge” said “no children.” If he went to a doctor, a scientist of sorts, that doctor would say, “No on child birth for you and Sarah.” How would he know? After God spoke to Abraham, Abraham believed what He said. God counted it for righteousness. What God said was science.
Was Abraham righteous? Did he know that? Yes, because God said he was. When Abraham was to offer Isaac in Genesis 22, he would offer him. Why? Hebrews 11:19 explains. He knew God was able to raise Isaac up. He knew that. Is that science? Would an empiricist have raised the knife to sacrifice his son? God Himself also offered his own Son and raised Him up.
True Science
If one considers empiricism, Eve saw that the tree was good for food (Genesis 3:6). Scoffers in 2 Peter 3 thought highly of their knowledge, mocking the truth of the second coming. God prohibited the tree to Eve. And He promised the second coming. Those are knowledge. 2 Peter begins with this teaching on science (knowledge) [1:3]:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue
In Genesis 22:18 God said, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The Apostle Paul comments on this promise from God in Galatians 3:16:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Paul reports that “seed” is singular. It’s speaking of Christ, which parallels with Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Incorporate Galatians 3:8 with the above:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
God would justify the heathen through faith. The heathen would believe in the seed, that through the seed they shall be blessed. Their faith also counts for righteousness.
The way to blessing for the world is through Jesus Christ. That’s not what science says. Science says population decline, one world government, the center for disease control, and reducing emissions in farming. The hearing of faith proceeds from knowledge. Knowledge informs of the truth of eternal blessing.
10,000 Out of 10,000
God backs up scripture with mathematical probability. Everything He said would happen, happened. All that He says will happen, will happen. 100 out of 100. 1,000 out of 1,000. 10,000 out of 10,000. Nothing else brings that kind of record. We know what He says. It’s why the Apostle Paul could and should say (2 Timothy 1:12):
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
This isn’t a leap in the dark. We know. God holds us accountable, based upon knowledge.
Transcendent
Transcendental truth, goodness, and beauty are outside of what men call the “scientific method,” process, and peer consensus. Someone can know the transcendentals, but they come by means of the revelation of God. They are self-evident, because God revealed them. They dovetail with the miracles of the Bible. God upholds all things. He intervenes in what He made and according to His will or His purposes.
As one example, God commands us, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29), without informing us what corrupt communication is. The Lord assumes we know what it is. Some still deny it, but this is truth suppression. God reveals this knowledge and requires another hearing of faith.
Pleasing God requires knowledge. The knowledge informs the faith that pleases God. This is not a secret knowledge, but it won’t be found by those who refuse to seek it with their whole heart (Jeremiah 29:13-14).
Changes in Personal Belief and the Effects on Relationships (part two)
Very often I tell people that I don’t know if I’m done changing in doctrine and practice. As I get older, I am changing less, but I haven’t found that changing ends. I think I’m done and then I encounter something else or another way I might need to change.
Changes
Other people always want me to change. When I evangelize I encounter others every week who want me to change in my beliefs, and I don’t. When I try to help others change, I cannot in good faith attempt to do that without the willingness to change myself. If I was not willing to change in a discussion of doctrine, I would call that, being closed minded. I expect open mindedness from others who I want to change, so I must be willing too.
In all my years of working for the Lord in and through churches, I have watched many changes on the landscape of churches and religious institutions in the United States. As I grew up, I rarely heard an expository sermon. Then I would attend preaching meetings and hear little exposition. Now I hear exposition for half the sermons at the same conference. I see this as a good change.
I have also seen many bad changes, so many that churches are worse today than ever. The worst changes are not doctrinal so much. They are cultural. The culture of church in the United States changed. It sadly followed the world, the spirit of the age. This then affects the whole country in a very negative way.
Changes in doctrine and practice followed the culture in the United States. Many churches don’t even know they changed. It occurred slowly over a long period of time, like watching a toddler grow up to a teenager. It was slow, but the outcome is very noticeable.
Change and Relationships
Because change can be bad, very bad, sometimes any change, especially if it isn’t a more conservative one, can seem bad. As a parent, maybe you have changed the rules or the code of conduct at home. You gave the children more liberty than they had. You had good intentions for loosening up on the standards. That could look like a change for the worse to some people. In fact, a parent may change his approach to teach discernment, so a way of helping his children.
Very often someone won’t change because of its potential effect on his relationships. Others will criticize him for changing. They may threaten him not to change. He doesn’t want to face that. Almost every change I’ve ever made affected relationships and sometimes in a major way.
When someone takes one position and changes to another, it might look like something is wrong. Why did he change? The truth doesn’t change. He believes and practices the truth. Is he forsaking the truth in some way?
Sanctification
I agree that the truth doesn’t change. It doesn’t. We must change though. It’s part of our sanctification. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says:
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit.
You can see that Paul uses the controversial “C” word, “changed.” Jesus doesn’t change. You must though.
It is even harder to change something as a leader. Whenever you change as a leader, people you’ve led will question the change.
Knowledge
When a leader changes in an area that he himself taught or preached, so that people followed, it might be very hard for the followers. This is one reason why as a leader you have to be very sure about something you teach or preach. Nonetheless, it can and will happen. You thought you understood fully. You thought you did. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Belief and practice relates to knowledge, something Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 12-14 among the spiritual gifts. Even though God gifts in knowledge, a person on this side of glory still sees through a glass darkly. He has knowledge. He still needs more knowledge until his glorification. Not until he sees Jesus face to face will he not need knowledge anymore.
Replay
Mulligan
I haven’t played golf much, but I understand playing golf and hitting some bad shots. It will happen. Among those who play golf as a hobby or for exercise, they understand the idea of a mulligan. Everyone knows you will hit a tee shot into the woods. You tee up another ball and start over. You give yourself a mulligan.
Even if you try to get everything right as a leader, you still need a few mulligans. You see through a glass darkly. You are trying to see through a glass clearly. If you are a preacher, did you ever preach a sermon, and you had to come back and correct something you said? I have. I hate it when I have to do it. Very much, I would rather not do that. I’m always afraid that I’ll lose the trust of the people if I come back to make the correction.
Editorial Process
Readers probably relate to the editorial process. You edit and find mistakes. When you think you have them all, you read again and find more mistakes. You edit. When you think you’ve got that all done and then give the piece to someone else to read, he finds many more mistakes. You publish the piece. Readers find more errors in the published document, something you hate the worst. It’s too late. Corrections must occur now in the next edition.
Some might say that we don’t get any mulligans in real life. I would say, hopefully we do. We all need mulligans in this life. Christians should understand that better than anyone.
Dress Rehearsals
A statement I often use is this: “Life has no dress rehearsals.” At various times of my life, I directed dozens of plays and programs. I’m not promoting drama as an element of worship. We had dress rehearsals for the plays and programs in our school. I am glad we had them.
It’s true that life doesn’t often have a dress rehearsal. Sometimes I thought I believed exactly right. It wasn’t until later that I found that a particular belief came from a tradition and I didn’t know it. I thought I had studied that myself. Once I did study it, I wondered how I defended that position.
Defending Positions
Tradition
Sometimes what will happen is that we have a belief or practice based upon a tradition and we teach it or preach it. At some point someone challenges the belief or practice. Rather than admit that we got that from tradition, we scrape up some arguments to defend the tradition. The tradition, maybe not a scriptural teaching, becomes more entrenched.
I’m not opposing all tradition. Paul uses the word (2 Thess 3:6) in a positive manner. Tradition isn’t enough for keeping the position though. Bad traditions can continue when we defend all traditions.
Inconsistency or Principled?
I’m fine with the word, inconsistent. It closely relates to another good word, principled. I noticed that some of the same people who attacked the January 6 protestors defended the Tennessee capital protestors. The attack was inconsistent. It wasn’t principled.
If we get further information about some position or issue and it merits a change, it is principled to change. It is not inconsistent. Changing might be easier. It could be harder. Whether it is easier or harder to change may not relate to consistency or principle. It relates to the reaction of other people and your future relationships.
Further Information
Let’s say that in the morning, you tell your children they must go to bed at 9pm. You get home at 9:15pm. Your children are still up. You say, “Get to bed.” The oldest child asks, “Can I ask you a question?” You say, “Yes.” He says, “Mom said we could stay up, because school was cancelled for tomorrow.” That’s new information that you didn’t have. You can change. You can think about what you said before, understand that you didn’t have all the information, and you can change your position. It isn’t inconsistent.
Evaluation of Leaders
Paul saw division in the church at Corinth. One major reason for division was bad evaluation of leaders. When leaders think of the evaluation of others, it can affect what they do in either a good or a bad way. I am not saying that they shouldn’t listen. Paul called the leaders, the “ministers of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:1).
“Ministers” translates the Greek word for “galley slaves.” The galley slaves work together on the oars, moving the ship forward, because they have one master. He calls out the rhythm of the oars. This simplifies the process for them. They’ve got one person to please. The person most important to please as a leader is Christ Himself.
Not Knowing What You With Certainty Can Know Is True and Knowing What You Can’t Know Is True
What you can know with certainty is anything that God says. You know the Bible is true. God said it. It’s true and you can know it with certainty. More than ever, what God says, people don’t know. They treat what God said like they can’t know it.
Scripture talks about treating what you can know like you can’t know it. It’s not about knowing. It’s about wanting. Someone doesn’t want to do it, so he eliminates it by not knowing it. He can know it and he does know it. He says he doesn’t know it.
What I’m writing about is like a little child who “forgets.” A parent asks if the child knows. The child nods, “No,” shaking his head back and forth, when the child knows. Not knowing is an excuse for not doing. He does know. With a very large sample size, I can say that children know more than what they act like they do.
Very often, for what people can know, they stay ignorant. They could know, but they don’t want to know. They like what they’re doing. If they don’t try to find out, then they won’t know. If they don’t know, they won’t have to do.
Knowing what you can know with certainty very often isn’t popular. It’s easier just to say that you don’t know.
On the other hand, people treat the Bible like it can’t be known. It’s just opinion. It is a story book of preferences. If it makes you feel good, sure, go ahead with it, but don’t treat it like something you can know.
An example of not knowing what you can know occurred recently in the Senate hearings for confirming the Supreme Court justice, when a Senator asked her to define a woman. She said she didn’t know that. She could know, but wasn’t willing to know.
Very often what the world knows is that it can’t know. It knows with certainty that it can’t know. The unknowability provides freedom. You’re not to judge what you can’t know, so you must not know. That way no one can judge. Then you get to live like you want.
Unwillingness to know becomes a basis of toleration. You’re in trouble if you judge something wrong, because you’re saying you can know, when you can’t. You’re left with tolerating wrong things. It’s required. The judgment itself becomes what’s wrong. An irony is that you can know when someone else can’t know.
I’m not saying, however, that people don’t say they know things. They know what’s wrong with their meal at a restaurant. These people write a bad review with complete conviction of their own knowledge. They know if they got bad service from someone. They know when someone offends them because it’s what they feel.
People know evolution is true. Evolution is still a theory. That status hasn’t changed, but men now know men evolved. This theory promotes naturalism. Knowing it frees men from their accountability to God, when they don’t know it. It’s a theory. It’s a theory that we actually know is not true.
Critical theory poses as knowledge. People know your motives. They know you’re racist. Climate science says it knows the world will end by global warming. Man causes the end of the world through natural means. God tells man how the world will end. That we know.
Churches are more and more worldly because of more and more preference, a lack of knowledge about scriptural things that were once known. They are still known, but treated like they are not. What distinguishes the roles of men and women, what were once known, now not known. The psychology behind overturning scripture, creating victims, who are not victims, this is now known. People are sure of this.
What I’m describing is leaning on man’s understanding and not on God’s. God is always right. Man is rarely to never. Living by faith, which pleases God, is living by what man can and should know, not by what he knows, but that he really cannot.
How should someone treat willful not knowing or rebellious knowing? He should tell the truth. He should embrace knowing what he can and should know. As the psalmist wrote in Psalm 118:6, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?” He should also stand against what he knows men cannot know.
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
As I started to write this post, I thought about whether I decided to write it or whether God predetermined my writing it. After the smoke exited and cleared my ears, I started writing again. Are my fingers typing on their own?
The Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
Does Calvinism Square With Scripture?
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory
People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.
Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology
The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.
The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.
Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
“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.
Signs of the Times?
I believe in imminency, which means Christ could return any moment. That’s enough for me to be as ready as I can be ready. You can’t get more expectant than possibly right now. However, I believe God allows us to see more to get us even more ready for His appearing. Any moment is difficult to sustain and everyone reading here knows that. Are these signs of the times?
In a technical sense, the signs of the times are all related to the second coming of Jesus Christ, not the rapture. The sign that Christ’s coming is near is a sign for His return to the earth, not believers being caught up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:16-17). Nothing has to happen on earth for the rapture to occur, no signs needed. No signs have to occur before the rapture. So are these events and circumstances to occur before the catching up of the saints? Are they signs?
Let me illustrate. The coronavirus might be at least pestilence-light. It’s not on the level of what we see in the tribulation period as a sign of the second coming of Christ, but it hearkens to that event. If this level of disease does what it has done, what will something much worse be like?
For a long time, I have thought that disease would be the factor that starts bringing the whole world together. It won’t all be together until later, but what we see occurring today could be moving us closer to the final event. Every country has this common cause of fighting disease. Physical life takes prominence. Health becomes more important than national interests. Citizens show willingness to give up personal autonomy for purposes of safety. It’s easier to control the many with only a few.
All the forms of media cause people to be more vulnerable to deceit. Temporal interests become preeminent and break down resistance to lust. This puts apostasy in the fast lane. Anyone who knows the Bible can see how evil this world has become.
As a sign during the tribulation, Israel will be saved. Well, Israel exists now, when it didn’t between 70 and 1948 AD. The rise of the nation Israel isn’t a sign, but it is an occurrence that makes way for several signs in the future.
We don’t live in an age of signs. They have occurred in the past during certain periods. Signs will arise to confirm to the Jewish people that the Messianic age, His kingdom on earth, is soon to come. These will authenticate another baptism of the Holy Spirit during that future age.
Events and circumstances today remind us of signs which are to come. They aren’t here yet, but we could say that this increasing knowledge relates to what Daniel prophesied in Daniel 12:4. Prophetic knowledge will increase as mankind gets closer to the end.
Recent Comments