Is the Future Set in Stone?: A Biblical study of God’s relation to time and knowledge of the future

by Troy Edwards

Most important to this study is the fact that Rev. 13:8, when interpreted properly, does not teach that God knew every detail of Christ’s death from eternity, to include all of the participants.

But just because God was prepared to deal with the possibility of a fall does not mean that He foresaw it or wanted it. It hurt Him when it happened even to the point of regretting having created mankind (Gen. 6:5-7). However, God is all wise and quite resourceful. He

If the murder of Christ was completely planned by God in all of its detail then He would have had to also be the source of the envy and strife of the Pharisees.

Luther Lee gives an excellent exposition of Acts 2:23 that is consistent with the Biblical evidence above: The delivery “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” relates to the gift of Christ, by the Father, for the redemption of the world, as declared John iii. 16-17. It is said that God gave his Son, and that he sent his Son into the world. The taking by wicked hands, was not included in the determinate counsel

and foreknowledge of God, as here expressed. It was doubtless foreknown, but it is not the thing affirmed of the foreknowledge. Nor was it a necessary part of the design of the delivery or gift of Christ. The crucifixion was a circumstance attending the death of Christ, growing out of the state of things existing at the time, but it was not essential to that death or to the atonement.6

Henry Tuke also noted a different understanding of Acts 2:23 when changing the word from “delivered up” to “given”: It is worthy of remark, that several passages in our English translation, which seem to favour this doctrine, are capable of a different rendering. For instance in Acts ii. 23, where it is translated, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” &c. the Greek word, ἔκδοτος, rendered delivered, may, with equal, or more propriety, be translated, given forth; then the passage may be read thus: “Him, who was given forth by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.”7 Now let us read a very familiar passage: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) When we read the literal translations of Acts 2:23 cited above and compare them to John 3:16 we see that it was God giving Jesus for our salvation that was foreknown and predetermined by God’s

counsel and not His death. Did God know that the men would ultimately kill His Son? Yes (Isa. 53:4-10). However, the Calvinist is wrong to claim that God predetermined this murder to take place and the Arminian is wrong to claim that God knew it in exhaustive detail. The idea of murder was from thoughts planted into the minds of wicked men by Satan (John 8:39-44).

Thankfully, God was able to make Satan’s act of hatred work against him. By killing an innocent man, Satan forfeited any rights that he had to rule mankind. Now the keys of death and hell belong to Jesus (Rev. 1:18). He offers freedom to all people trapped in Satan’s kingdom (Acts 26:18; Col. 1:12-14). HALLELUJAH!

Pontius Pilate would have Jesus crucified, why do we read the following? When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. (Matthew 27:19) If God gave Pilate’s wife this dream then He was undermining His own intentions by having Pilate’s wife try to steer him from God’s preordained course. If

Now it is perfectly clear to my mind, that that which the scripture says God had determined before to be done, refers to that work which the Savior came to accomplish, and for which purpose God had anointed him. While engaged in the performance of that work were gathered together AGAINST the Lord, and his Christ; which word AGAINST, signifies that they opposed God, and his Son whom he had sent to accomplish the work of salvation, proving most conclusively, that they were not acting in accordance with his will, and therefore could not have been fulfilling his decree!9 We agree. There

New Life Version: You know that Herod and Pilate and the Jews and the people who are not Jews gathered together here against Jesus. He was Your Holy Son and the One You had chosen to do everything You planned and said would happen.

Some of the most studied theologians of the past such as Adam Clarke and Lee Luther believe that the type of transposition of the text as presented above removes any idea that men committing murder was in the plan of God: The only comment necessary to be offered on this text is to transpose its parts, without altering a word, so as to make it read as follows :—“ For of a truth. against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, for to do whatsoever thy hand and .thy counsel determined before to be done, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together." The things determined by God to be done, were what Christ was anointed to do, and not what his enemies were gathered together to do. They were gathered against him, and not to do what the counsel of God had determined. There is then, no proof here that God decreed any of the wicked actions of men.10 It is evident that what God’s hand and counsel determined before to be done was not that which Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, (Romans,) and the

people of Israel had done and were doing; for, then, their rage and vain counsel would be such as God himself had determined should take place, which is both impious and absurd; but these gathered together to hinder what God had before determined that his Christ or Anointed should perform; and thus the passage is undoubtedly to be understood.11 In conclusion, there is nothing in Scripture teaching that God had an exhaustive foreknowledge of every detail of our Lord’s death. God

Actually, Isaiah does quite the contrary in showing that God does not operate in this way (Isa. 5:1-7; 30:15-16, 18; 31:5-6; 38:1-6; 43:25; 48:18-19; 59:16; 63:5, 8-11).

Actually, the people could have avoided the exile into Babylon altogether if they had listened to Jeremiah.

Since there was a possibility to change the future then God could not have looked into it and saw detailed information about Cyrus.

But it would be impossible for our Lord to have an “eternal now” existence because He tells us that He lived, died and is now risen from death forevermore.

If God blots people’s names out of the book of life then the future is not settled. One can certainly forfeit the eternal life purchased for him by Christ by sinning and failing to repent.

Why only a thousand-year imprisonment? Why not take care of Satan forever and be done with it? This is so that God can remove every doubt from the mind of loyal angels and men as to why He will have no choice to but to do away with Satan forever.

When God is said to “repent,” it is not any accommodation either to weakness, or human language. To admit that God, at any time, ceases to speak plain, simple truth, is, in principle, to undermine the whole Scriptures.1

But the major problem is that theologians have no authoritative basis outside of their centuries old tradition for changing God’s Words from “now I know” to “Well, actually, I knew all along Abe. I was just pulling your leg. It’s just that you are not smart enough to handle the idea that I am outside of time. Your pea-brain cannot handle such deep philosophical concepts about me.” Yes, the theologians in the past 500 or so years who have little to no personal experience with God are smarter than those who lived many centuries ago, or so they think.

The school of Alexandria was influenced by the Jewish exegete Philo, who used and popularized the allegorical method to explain away the anthropomorphic portrayals of God in the Hebrew Scriptures so objectionable to Platonic philosophers. Clement of Alexandria, the founder of the school of Alexandria, adopted Philo's allegorical approach as an apologetic device to explain away elements of Scripture that were objectionable to Greek detractors of Christianity (anthropomorphic portrayals of God, earthy Hebrew expressions that offended Greek sensibilities, low level of morality of many Israelites, and the annihilation of the Canaanites) and to demonstrate that Christian theology,

the true philosophy, was compatible with Greek philosophy.... Unfortunately, by using the allegorical method for his apologetical agenda, he distorted the meaning of Scripture.3

In order to win over the philosophers—the intellectual elite of that period—it was necessary to distort the meaning of Scripture. Since the philosophers hated any depiction of God that made Him appear to be “human” then it became necessary to compromise truth.

Out of deference to the transcendence of God and under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy (Heraclitus and Xenophanes were relentless critics of anthropomorphic talk of God), both the Jewish and Christian traditions have sought at times to downplay the anthropomorphic language of Scripture. Aramaic translations of the OT avoid all anthropomorphism, and the Septuagint frequently removes or moderates the attribution of human characteristics to God in the Hebrew texts (e.g., LXX, Josh 4:24; Ex. 15:3). The Jewish philosopher Philo was typical of many who were eager to stress the allegorical interpretation required in the face of biblical anthropomorphism. He was followed in this by Maimonides, who drew on the philosophy of Aristotle to counter all anthropomorphic conceptions of God.4

If God has said these things about Himself then how dare we say that He was merely adapting His language to man’s limited and finite understanding?

On the contrary, it is the revelation of theopomorphism, which means that man is like God since he is created in God’s image and likeness.

When God says that He is “not like us” He is referring to man’s sinful evil activities.

There is no justification for claiming that such statements are “metaphorical” or “anthropomorphic,” especially when a person cannot explain what the so-called “metaphor” or “anthropomorphism” symbolizes about God.

Dake, Finis J. God’s Plan For Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake’s Bible Sales, 1949, 1977), p. 621. Finis Dake writes, “…. certain passages used to teach foreknowledge from all eternity in connection with detailed events in the lives of free wills really refer to His general plan only, not to free moral acts of those particular men.” 2. McIntyre, Joe E. W. Kenyon and His Message of Faith: The True Story (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1997). 3. Pastor McIntyre was primarily fascinated with Dr. Boyd’s “Warfare Worldview” which is partly based on openness theology. Chapter One 1. California man found guilty of murder after his dogs kill woman, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-man-found-guilty-of-murder-after-his-dogs-kill-woman/ (Last accessed: December 3, 2015)

O’Connor, William Patrick The Concept of the Human Soul According to Saint Augustine (Catholic University of America, 1921), pp. 21, 22 2. Ibid, p. 22 3. Pratney, Winkey A. The Nature and Character of God (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1988), p. 452 4. Ibid, p. 450 5. Holland, Jr., Richard A. God, Time, and the Incarnation (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012), p. 25 6. Ibid, p. 38 7. Cullmann, Oscar Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950), p. 46

Edwards, Troy J. Untying God’s “Nots”: Or, How Much Control Does God Really Have? (Pawtucket, RI Vindicating God Ministries, 2016), pp. 87-90 2. Sheldon, William Observations on the Theological Mystery, the Harmonial Philosophy, and Spirit Rappings (Hartford: Press of Case, Tiffany, and Company, 1851), pp. 156, 157 Chapter Seven 1. Harry Lee Poe, J. Stanley Mattson What God Knows: Time, Eternity, and Divine Knowledge (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), See p. 146 for an example of how some attempt to show Jesus resides in an “eternal now”. 2. “Hebrews 1:5” in Word Studies in the New Testament by Marvin Vincent, D. D. 3. Govett, Robert Christ Superior to Angels, Moses and Aaron, A Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1884), p. 12 4. Farrar, Frederic William The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews: With Notes and Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1883), p. 61 5. Beecher, Charles Redeemer and Redeemed: An Investigation of the Atonement and of Eternal Judgment (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1864), p. 96 Chapter Eight 1. Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Edition 2. John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible, Published in 1755-1766; E-Sword Edition. 3. Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, Edited By: Daniel D. Wheddon, D.D. L.L.D., First Published: 1874 – 1909. E-Sword Edition 4. Wesley Notes 5. Dyke, Henry Van The Gospel for an Age of Doubt (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1896), p. 269 Chapter Nine 1. Grant, M...

Butler, James Glentworth The Bible-Work Old Testament, Vol. IX (Ezekiel-Malachi) (New York: Funk and Wagnals, 1899), p. 347 3. Various Authors “Analytic and Homiletical Thoughts on the Epistle to the Romans” in The Study: Helps for Preachers from English, American, and Continental Sources, Volume 2 (London: R.D. Dickinson, 1874), p. 557 4. Hopkins, Ezekiel The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins, D.D. (Philadelphia: The Leighton Publications, 1863), p. 118 5. Spurgeon, Charles H. Collected Works Vol. 1 (Revelation Insight Publishing Co., 2010), p. 271 6. Spurgeon, Charles H. The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (Vol. XXIII) (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1878), pp. 83, 84 Chapter Thirteen 1. Johnson, Ashley Sidney The Holy Spirit and the Human Mind (Knoxville, TN: Press of Gant-Ogden Company, 1903), p. 326 2. Porter, Josias Leslie The Pew and study Bible, with Notes (London: Blackie and Son, 1876), p. 347 3.

Sunderland, La Roy Biblical Institutes; or, A Scriptural Illustration of the Doctrines, Morals, and Precepts of the Bible (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1834), p. 118 4. Barth, Christian Gottlob The Bible Manual: An Expository and Practical Commentary on the Books of Scripture (London: James Nisbet and Company, 1865), pp. 405, 406 Chapter Fourteen 1. Brother Andrew And God Changed His Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990, 1999), p. 13 2. Kinsley, William Wirt Science and Prayer (New York: Flood and Vincent, 1893), pp. 80, 81 3. Jellett, John Hewitt The Efficacy of Prayer (London: MacMillan and Co., 1878), p. xxi 4. Moody, Dwight L. The Great Redemption: Or, Gospel Light (New York: Loomis National Library Association, 1888), pp. 139-140 5. “And the Lord Repented of the Evil that He Thought to Do” in The Journal and Messenger: The Central National Baptist Paper, Volume 88 (Cincinnati: Lasher & Osborne, 1919), p. lx 6. Tucker, William “Prayer—Objectively Viewed” in The Quarterly Review of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South: January, 1884 (Macon, GA: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1884), p. 660 7. Ibid, p. 662 8. Carroll, Wesley Philemon The Sabbath as an Ame...

Sawyer, Leicester Ambrose The Holy Bible Containing the Old and the New Testaments, Vol. II: The Later Prophets (Boston: Walker, Wise, and Company, 1861), p. 338 15. Sunderland, Biblical Institutes, p. 119 16. Ibid, p. 120 Chapter Fifteen 1. Dyke, Henry Van The Gospel for an Age of Doubt (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1896), pp. 269, 270 2. Nee, Watchman The Prayer Ministry of the Church (New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1973), p. 10 3. Telford, John The London Review, Volume 10 (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Company, 1858), pp. 275, 276 Chapter Sixteen 1. Epp, Theodore H. Moses: Excellence in Leadership (Vol. II) (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible, 1975), p. 281 2. Smiley, Sarah Frances The Fulness of Blessing: Or, the Gospel of Chris...

Morris, Francis Orpen “Spiritual Disquisitions, No. II” in The Church of England Magazine, Volume 10 (London: James Burns 1841), p. 411 Chapter Eighteen 1. Elseth, H. Roy Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God (St. Paul, MN: Calvary United Church, Inc., 1977), p. 109 2. West, Nathaniel The Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible: Or, How to Comprehend Holy Writ from Its Own Interpretation, Containing the Whole of the Old and New Testaments (New York: A.J. Johnson, 1869), p. 1078 3. Davidson, Andrew Bruce Old Testament Prophecy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), p. 11 4. Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), p. 268

Usher, Charles The Prayer Life (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1967), pp. 35-36 2. “Comments on Deuteronomy 31:21” in Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (E-Sword edition) 3. Hewett, John Commentaries and Annotations on the Holy Scriptures, Volume 4 (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1816), p. 13 4. Wesley, John Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (London: G. Paramore, 1795), p. 16 5. Fallows, Samuel The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia and Scriptural Dictionary (Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1911), p. 34 6. Rees, Abraham The Cyclopædia, Or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature, Volume 29 (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, 1819)

“The Prophecies of the Old Testament Respecting the Messiah” in The Monthly Religious Magazine and Theological Review, Volume 8 (Boston: Leonard C. Bowles, 1851), p. 171 8. Stackhouse, Thomas A History of the Holy Bible, Volume 2 (London: Blackie and Son, 1869), p. 879 Chapter Twenty 1. Alford, Henry The New Testament for English Readers, Vol. I (Rivingtons, 1808), p. 525 2. Ellicott, Charles John A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, Volume 1 (London: Cassell and Company, 1897), p. 434 3. “The Character and Sin of Judas” in The Sunday Magazine (London: Strahan & Company, 1868), p. 95 4. Robinson, Edward “Greek Lexicon of the New Testament” as quoted in McCabe, Lorenzo Dow The Foreknowledge of God: And Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy (Cincinnati: Walden and Stowe, 1882), p. 122 5. Trevor, George The Story of the Cross: In

Daily Contemplations for the Holy Week (London: J. & C. Mozley, 1866), p. 34 6. Ibid, pp. 34, 35 7. Barnes, Albert Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, on the Book of Psalms (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1868), pp. 372, 373 8. Henn, Silas Spurgeon’s Calvinism Examined and Refuted (London: J. B. Cooke, 1858), p. 25 9. Ibid, p. 27 10. “Comments on Matthew 27:9” in Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible (E-Sword edition) 11. Robertson, A. T. Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (New York: The MacMillian Company, 1911), p. 68 12. Stuart, Moses Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy (Andover: Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, 1842), p. 38 13. Clarke, Adam The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 3 (Cincinnati: H.S. & J. Applegate & Company, 1851), p. 645 14. Sykes , Arthur Ashley An Essay Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion (London: J. and J. Knapt...

For example, Luke and John do not include Peter’s affirmation of loyalty as recorded in Matthew 26:35 and Mark 14:31. All four gospels are divinely inspired by God but because each one had a different audience they were trying to reach there was some things that were unnecessary to record and other things that were important to a particular audience. Matthew wrote his gospel to reach the Jews, Luke to reach the Greeks, Mark targeted the Roman specifically, and John’s was written to confront the gnostic heresy of his time. 2. Bruce, William Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (London: Missionary Society of the New Church, 1905), p. 332