23 - Foreknowledge and Prophecy [B]

Foreknowledge and Prophecy. Acts 2:23-35

Acts 2:22 ^NASB "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— " These were the prophetic credentials that the Old Testament prophets said would accompany the Messiah. One of the things that we see in Peter's message here is that he is showing again how the life of Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. There were over three hundred prophecies in the Old Testament related to what would happen when the Messiah came. There were related to two different aspects of the Messiah's ministry. The first was that the Messiah would come and would suffer and died. That is clear from passages such as Isaiah chapter fifty-three. Then there is a second group of passages that focus on the glorious reign of the Messiah; that He would come to rule and reign over Israel. Unfortunately what happened when Jesus came the first time was that because Israel had been under the heel of the tyranny of Rome for a number of decades they were looking for a deliverer to come and free them politically, not recognizing that political freedom isn't real freedom if you don't have spiritual freedom. If there is not freedom in the soul then there is not real freedom. Even when there is freedom in the soul, if there is no capacity for understanding that freedom then people just want to re-enslave themselves and sell out responsibility for the sake of security; which is what happened to the exodus generation once they got out into the wilderness. Real freedom comes from being under the authority of God and under the law of God—in a generic sense: not the Mosaic Law but in a broader sense of the law of God and being in right relationship to God. Spiritual freedom precedes political freedom. Spiritual freedom is what gives people the capacity to appreciate political freedom and individual responsibility, individual responsibility being the first divine institution established by God before sin was ever on the planet. In the exodus event there is an emphasis on personal responsibility. Each individual is responsible and accountable to God and that is what Peter is emphasizing here when he addresses the men of Israel. 

Acts 2:23 ^NASB "this {Man,} delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put {Him} to death." It is clear here that Peter is talking about the fact that in a physical sense it was the Jewish people who brought Jesus up on charges and brought Him to Pilate. But he is not saying that it was only the Jewish people who are complicit here. If we look at Scripture everybody is complicit in the death of Jesus. He was taken to the Roman authorities because only they could impose a capital punishment on Jesus, and it is the Roman authorities who find Jesus guilty even though there is no evidence of guilt. But all humanity is guilty because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and because of that there was the necessity for a plan of salvation which included a sacrifice for sin. He is delivered up by the purpose of God, so God is involved in providing a savior. Therefore God is responsible in one sense—in the sense that He has the plan of salvation—and men are responsible; so you can't do what some people have done, which is to try to blame the Jews. This was the root of centuries of horrible Christian anti-Semitism and there was absolutely no basis for this in Scripture; it is just what happens when people come along and read just one verse, rip it out of context and go in another direction.

Note: Calvinists claim that God cannot really know what will take place beforehand unless He first determines what will take place. That is a foundational assumption, really a philosophical conclusion that is brought to the text, and it governs their understandings of all of the words in this whole election-foreknowledge controversy. That means that they put foreknowledge in front of omniscience. What they mean by foreknowledge is that God determines beforehand what will happen—then He knows all things: how can He know what He hasn't already determined. What this actually does in terms of theology is place the priority on the divine will, on God's elective choice, on His decree as to what will take place and won't take place before there is any certainty of knowledge. So in Calvinism God's will is the first thing—He chooses what will happen—and then comes foreknowledge, then omniscience. That is the logical order within the Calvinist system. Their basic claim is that God's knowledge would be contingent or dependent upon His will (will comes first) and that this implies that a future event cannot be certain in the mind of God without God first determining that it would happen. A problem that we have with that is that it doesn't really allow for contingency. Two verses in Scripture indicate that God knows contingent things (things that didn't happen but could have happened): Matthew 11:23 where Jesus is addressing the people in Capernaum who have rejected His ministry. ^NASB "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day." That clearly shows that in Christ's omniscience He knows what would have happened under other conditions. That means He knows contingencies; Luke 10:13 ^NASB "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." God knows what would have happened under different circumstances.

The Hebrew word for knowledge, yada, is used 944 times in the Old Testament. It's basic meaning is to know, to understand, to be cognizant of something, to be aware of something, to understand something. It is used in a context of a personal relationship such as "Abraham knew Sarah and she conceived," which indicates a more intimate knowledge. It is used in the context of a personal relationship about 90 times of those 944 times (about 10 per cent, five of which are claimed to have the meaning of an intimate personal relationship involving a choice). When we look at those five uses there is not one of them that necessitates bringing the idea of choice or selection into the meaning. When we take the phrase, "Abraham knew Sarah and she conceived," to bring choice and selection into it is not what is in the context at all; that is just reading something into it that is not part of the statement. Obviously somewhere in the background there is choice but that is not part of the semantic value of the term in terms of the main emphasis in that sentence. In the Greek the meaning of ginosko [ginwskw], which means knowledge; proginosko [proginwskw], knowledge ahead of time—ginosko [ginwskw] is used about 223 in the New Testament, every time with the meaning of knowledge, understanding, perceiving truth, something like that; but it never has the connotation of selection, election or choice. Knowing in the context of a personal relationship is present in three passages (1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:19) but in none of those places can we read into it the idea of choice or election. Conclusion: proginosko has the idea of knowing something ahead of time but it doesn't have the idea of election or selection. Foreknowledge is not a synonym for election, yet that is how Calvinist theology takes it. It makes it virtually a synonym for choice or selection ahead of time.

Two key verses put foreknowledge ahead of election. It is clear the Bible teaches election; nobody should doubt that, election is all through Scripture. But what do we mean by election? What is the basis for God's choice? 1 Peter 1:2 ^NASB "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood…" The idea here is that the choice of God is "according to," which indicates whatever is after the "according to" is prior to the act of election. So election is dependent upon something prior, which is God's foreknowledge, i.e. His knowledge ahead of time. So in His choice God is not just being arbitrary and picking out some who are going to be elect and some who aren't without taking into account certain information within His knowledge.

Romans 8:28 ^NASB "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose." It is important to recognize that that second phrase, "those who are called according to His purpose," as it is defined in the next couple of verses means every believer. So this isn't setting up a category and saying that things only work together for good to only those who love God. It refers to every believer. [29] "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son…" So what comes first, foreknowledge or God's decision of predestination? What we see here is that foreknowledge precedes predestination.

The word "predestination" in the Greek is proorizo [proorizw]. We've seen that the word that word that we have for God's intended purpose in Acts 2:23 is horizo [o(rizw]. So proorizo is to intend or purpose something ahead of time. We read here that foreknowledge comes first and then He sets up a destination/purpose ahead of time. It is important to understand this because in the text what is predestined? What is predestined is "to be conformed to the image of His Son," not to be justified. Conforming us to the image of His Son is the ultimate goal that God has in mind for every single believer. Whether you want to grow as a believer or not God's predetermined destiny for you is that you be like Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that your volition doesn't come into play; it doesn't mean that you can't become rebellious, can't be carnal, can choose to not go on with God's plan and say "I prefer to be disciplined by God on a daily basis than to follow God's plan of spiritual growth." But what this is saying is that God's predetermined plan for the believer is to conform believers into the image of His Son. That is all it is saying.

We need to address the whole issue of the relationship between the determined purpose or intended plan of God and foreknowledge. Acts 2:23 ^NASB "this {Man,} delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put {Him} to death." What we have here is a construction in the Greek that is an article, noun, conjunction, noun—article noun, kai [kai], noun. This is similar to what was identified by a Greek scholar in the late 18^th century by the name of Granville Sharp. The Granville Sharp rule is a very famous rule. It applies to certain kinds of nouns, that when both nouns are of the same kind and they are joined by a conjunction (and), and there is only one article at the beginning—"the purpose and knowledge"—then they are synonyms, both speaking about the same thing but just using synonyms. One of the problems that is then seen in the Granville Sharp rule is that as further studies have been conducted that rule only applies to personal singular non-proper nouns; personal nouns, not abstract nouns. Example: We are all familiar with Ephesians 4:10, 11 which talks about the fact that Christ has given various gifts to the church—apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers. For years we have communicated that last phrase by the English, pastor-teacher, as if it is the same thing. That idea came out of a misuse of the Granville Sharp rule. It is the same kind of construction—

article, noun, con junction, noun. But that doesn't fit the Granville Sharp rule because these are not personal nouns. An alternative solution has been proposed for passages like that, calling it a hendiadys. A hendiadys is basically when you have this kind of construction and you know that these two nouns relate to each other in some way, but the question is, how do they relate to each other? Studies have shown that 75% of the time when this kind of construction occurs these nouns are related but one noun is related to another noun in a dependent way. So one is primary, the other is dependent upon it. But in 75% of the occurrences of this construction the first noun is dependent upon the second noun. Let's apply that to a familiar passage on the gift of pastor and teacher. What it means is that it is not that they are equivalent—pastor-teacher, which is what a misuse of the Granville Sharp rule indicated, but according to this use of a hendiadys if it fits the predominant pattern, which is where the first noun is dependent upon the second, it should be understood as someone who pastors through teaching—not someone who teaches through pasturing.

How would we resolve that? We can't resolve that just on the basis of grammar and context, it has to be resolved by comparing other passages related to both teaching and related to being a pastor, and it has to be thought about in terms of the meaning of these words. So the term "pastor" is really a metaphor that is borrowed from agriculture, from a shepherd over sheep. How does a shepherd function in relation to sheep? It is really a leadership metaphor. When we look at the Scripture it relates to guidance, to protection, and to teaching. And it is really the teaching that provides the protection, the guidance, the direction, the information. Example: John 21 where the Lord tells Peter to feed His lambs, His sheep. What we don't see in the English is that there are three sets of synonyms used there—different words for love, for feed, for sheep. One thing we get out of that passage is that Peter, if he is going to be a leader in the church, has a responsibility to feed the sheep. He will feed different sheep, depending on their age, in different ways but his goal is to feed the sheep. How do we feed the sheep? By teaching them the Word of God. There are pastoral models that have been developed throughout the church age where pastors are doing all kinds of different things but their primary role isn't feeding the sheep/teaching them the Word. 

You can go back into the Old Testament when the Lord is rebuking the spiritual leaders of Israel for being false shepherds. They are false shepherds because they are teaching the wrong thing; they are teaching false doctrine. So we can build a theology here but we see that the primary metaphor of being a pastor or shepherd to God's flock has to do with teaching. That means a pastor as a general concept is a very broad concept, but teaching narrows it down and defines the metaphor and how that metaphor is to be used. When we look at this broad context and com e to Ephesians 4:10, 11 we see that if that is taken as a hendiadys it is pastoring through teaching; the teaching defines the meaning of the word pastor.

We have the same kind of construction here in Acts 2:23. If we look at this verse in the dominant way in which this construction is used, where the first noun is dependent on the second noun, then this would mean that God's foreknowledge is prior to His intended purpose. So we read that He was delivered by the intended purpose of God through His foreknowledge. That means that foreknowledge is prior. But that is a judgment call in a certain sense because 25% of the uses could go the other way. So how do we determine that? We go to more clear passages: Romans 8:28, 29, 1 Peter 1:2. These passages indicate that foreknowledge is prior—God's knowledge ahead of time of what will take place. 

We see an illustration of this is in Acts 2:24 ^NASB "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power." The resurrection is the greatest sign of John's Gospel (he has seven signs plus the resurrection). He was dead; there is no way you can sustain a claim to a swoon theory or some sort of conspiracy. Peter's point is that in His life there were signs and wonders and miracles, the greatest of which comes after His death when God raised Him up. And here Peter makes an extraordinary claim: that is was impossible for the Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament to have stayed in the grave. His resurrection from the grave must be understood from messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. Peter then goes to Psalm 16: Acts 2:25 "For David says of Him, 'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN.'" Right off the bat Peter is saying that David in Psalm 16 is talking about the Messiah, not about himself. [26] 'THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; [27] BECAUSE YOU [God the Father] WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. [28] YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.'"

Look at how Peter handles this.  Acts 2:29 ^NASB "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." David died. His body was placed in a grave, Peter is saying, his tomb is "with us today." His physical body went through decomposition and was in the grave. David could not be speaking of himself in Psalm 16.

Acts 2:30 ^NASB "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT {one} OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE." And so Peter is emphasizing that resurrection is clearly taught in the Old Testament. This was Passover. There is an element within the meal that also foreshadows through a picture image, resurrection. In the middle of a Passover meal there is a ceremony that relates to the matzah. Three squares of matzah are taken and are placed inside a bag that has three compartments. In Jewish tradition they are not always sure what this represents. Some say it Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; some say it the priests, the prophets; others have other suggestions. But they can't explain why it is that the middle one is broken. Jesus took the middle one out when He is celebrating the Lord's table, and He said, "This is my body which is given for you." He is saying that the significance of that middle matzah is His body which is going to die. What is interesting about what happens after that is that the larger piece of the matzah that is broken is taken and put in another bag called a Greek word which means that which comes after desert. They play this little game with the kids who will go and hide it, and then later on at the end of the meal they will go and find it. What the breaking of the matzah pictures is the death of the Messiah. The hiding of the bag pictures the burial, and then at the end it is found and brought forth, a picture of resurrection.

When you look at a matzah, which is flat bread baked, and there are burn marks on it and it is pierced. This fits the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53 that "He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities." So that middle matzah and the whole ceremony is a picture that the Messiah would be raised from the dead. That is what Peter is quoting here from Psalm 16:8-11. He is saying, don't you understand that the prophecy that David gave was not about himself because his body went into the grave and was corrupted. But he is saying that the Messiah would not stay in the grave, that it was impossible for Him to stay in the grave because God had promised that His body would not see corruption. Acts 2:33 ^NASB "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear." See how he has brought all this back to the promise of the Holy Spirit who has just been poured out upon them. Peter ties these Old Testament prophecies together, showing that Jesus fulfilled them as the Messiah, He fulfills them in His resurrection, and as a result of that He is exalted to the right hand of the Father and He pours out God the Holy Spirit.