“Then the word to the Lord came to me saying ‘Behold before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I sanctified you. I ordained you a prophet to the nations.’ Then said I: ‘Ah, Lord God! Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.’ But the Lord said to me: ‘Do not say, 'I am a youth,' For you shall go to all to whom I send you, And whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of their faces, for I am with you to deliver you,’ says the Lord. Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: ‘Behold, I have put My words in your mouth. See, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms. To root out and to pull down. To destroy and to throw down. To build and to plant.’ Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Jeremiah, what do you see?’ And I said, ‘I see a
branch of an almond tree.’ Then the Lord said to me, ‘You have seen well, for I am ready to perform My word.’”
Jeremiah 1:4-12
Clearly the Bible is saying God decided to use Jeremiah in a specific way before Jeremiah was even an adult. Does God still do this? Is it only for prophets or people doing ministry? Or are we all destined for specific tasks? Are they all spiritual people-need-to-get-saved tasks? And does this only happen when people can audibly hear God saying things? It seems like Jeremiah audibly heard from God in this passage. Of course this has been translated a few times. And is the purpose of this passage to simply be inspired by God using someone young? Or is the reader supposed to take something from it and apply it to his or her own life? Is it right to read this and infer that God is "telling me to do _________"?
6 comments:
Indeed, what DOES God know? Is it necessary that he have comprehensive knowledge of all future affairs? If so, how does one avoid reducing Christian faith to but another form of fatalism?
I think in terms of trajectory. God has a purpose for mankind and for the individual. We should remember that the future does not exist, and I'm inclined to think that it is not possible for God to know something that does not exist. He knows, I think, what we WOULD do. He knows the possibilities and potentialities. He has, as I suggested, a trajectory for us.
THe opening sentences of the Jeremiah passage I have taken to be poetry. But even if taken literally, I still don't think the passage requires a determinadness to our existence.
I could go on and on about this...
Matt,
I'm sorry to hear this from you. The Bible seems to contradict your statements on trajectory. Take Isaiah 46:9-10 as an example:
"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose."
Isaiah 42:8-9 - "I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them."
While vision of Jeremiah in chapter 1 is poetry, it is in the context of prose. But aside from this, it is hard to discount the words of God through Isaiah. Or take, perhaps, the book of Proverbs:
"Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" (20:24)
"Many plans are in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand." (19:20)
Or even from Jeremiah 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps."
Take Job as another example: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be twarted." (Job. 42:2)
Or even Lamentations, a book historically attributed to the authorship of Jeremiah: "Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?" (Lam. 3:37-38)
Clearly Jeremiah was of the opinion that God is absolutely sovereign. If this is not enough, God's purpose in Christ is also seen of as ordained by God. In Acts 2:23, Peter says, "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (For the NT also see Acts 4:27-28; Rev. 17:17; Romans 9; Ephesians 1; Psalm 135:5-7; etc.)
In the end, you must understand that if there is a God in heaven then he is absolutely sovereign over all things, which includes future events. There is no such thing as coincidence or luck, for "the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (Prov. 16:33) I think that it is necessary for God to have comprehensive knowledge of the future. Without it, the Bible is a weightless historical document, and its God is creation of the human imagination. While it is true that the future does not exist ON A HUMAN LEVEL, God stands outside of time. He exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). It is important to understand "time" as part of the creation. For God, the trajectory he sees is in glory of Jesus Christ, whom God "exalted...and bestowed...the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:9-11)
Blessings,
Josh Philpot
Clearly we share different opinions and I do not wish to get into a debate concerning what God does and doesn't know. Does God have hopes and intentions for us? Of course he does, this is not a point of contention. Is scripture alone going to resolve the disagreement? No, its not. This is a common problem among many evangelicals who have gotten themselves entirely too worked up about theological determinism; there are passages to support those of the reformed persuasion, and there are passages to support the more libertarian. What good does that achieve: "I have THIS verse to show you!" Only to be responded to with: "Ah, but I have THIS verse to prove my point instead!" Ab nauseum. This 400+ year discussion is not going to be resolved by a few appeals to a few token passages; we need discussion formed by logical argument and sound judgment.
To be in control of the future does not require that one have exhaustive knowledge of the future. What it is like for GOd to know something that does not exist, I am not in the position to explain. Besides all the potentiality and possibilities of the future; to what are you referring to when you say that the future exists? If you mean the future exists in the divine mind, then this option cannot avoid pagan fatalism. What meaning can I bring to my life if the ability (and gift) to decide has been revoked. Under this scheme, even my decision to brush my teeth this morning was not mine, but God thought it good to see to it that I DO brush my teeth this morning, but only at that time he deems worthy.
But I suspect all my legitimate concerns shall be chalked up to "mystery"; a convenient piece of rhetoric which allows the theological determinist to avoid the tougher questions about what it might mean to be entirely determined to do everything we shall ever do.
I anticipate a lengthy response, and such is certainly welcomed. But please do respond to the tensions of theological determinism. Please do tell me how the field of ethics, which is based upon an assumption that mankind has a certain level of freedom, might be concieved under a scheme of theological determinism?
Blessings to you as well,
Matthew
Matt, I was surprised to read that you view the future as unknowable. I've read two books by Dr. Greg Boyd's in which he posits a similar view and am very much inclined to agree. The few times I've raised this possibility in class, however, I've been shot down in a hail of theological bullets.
I'll be reading further comments with great interest.
Ahhhh! This takes me back to 1975. Every generation of serious theologians has struggled with these very same issues. Do we take the Word of God as sufficient? Of course we do. And we still don't completely know what the foreknowledge of God really means.
Fern
Yes, it takes me back to 1975 as well.......ok, not really.
John, I should add that though I do sympathize with Boyd I actually disagree on several critical points. However, I do (at present anyway) find Middle Knowledge (also called Molinism) rather persuasive. I won't go into the details of it here, but there is plenty of online resources that can elucidate what the theory means and provides. Still, there are varieties even amongst Molinists, so when you're brushing up, keep in mind that there is a wide range of opinion.
Post a Comment