We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to 1 Kings 13:2–3?
The Lord proclaims against the pagan alter of Jeroboam, “O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘A son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who offer incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.’ He gave a sign the same day, saying, ‘This is the sign that the Lord has spoken: The altar shall be torn down, and the ashes that are on it shall be poured out.’” (Cf. 2 Kings 22:1; 23:15–16)
The Lord was growing impatient with the ever-increasing idolatrous practices of the Israelites. He therefore decreed that it would come to a violent end in a subsequent generation by a descendant of the house of David. As a proof that Yahweh, not an idol, is the sovereign Lord of history, Yahweh surrounded this predetermined destruction with certain prophetic signs. He told the Israelites ahead of time how this destruction would occur and even the name of the one who would initiate it: Josiah (meaning, “Yahweh supports”).
The passage clearly expresses that at this point God had resolved to control, and thus foreknow, certain aspects of the future. But the passage does not suggest that everything about the future is foreknown as a settled fact, or even that the portion that would come to pass (which the Lord at this point foreknew) was always foreknown by God.
It is important to keep in mind that the sovereign Lord of history can determine whatever he wants to about the future and thus foreknow it. He wisely balances the freedom he grants his human subjects with his providential control as he guides the world to achieve his overall objectives. Thus, for example, though Josiah’s father Amon remained free in other respects, he was apparently not free to choose any name other than “Josiah” for his son, for this had been divinely determined. And though Josiah remained a free agent, at least one thing about his future was absolutely certain: he would destroy the pagan altar and end the pagan priesthood that had been plaguing Israel.
Many people who are accustomed to the classical view of divine foreknowledge initially have difficulty with the notion of a partly settled and partly open future. It seems to them that it must be all one way or the other. This is why they are inclined to interpret biblical passages which depict God as knowing some definite things about the future as providing evidence that God has exhaustive definite knowledge of the future.
As we argued earlier, however, neither the Bible nor our experience supports such an all-or-nothing attitude. The biblical accounts that depict God as knowing aspects of the future are balanced by accounts that depict God as not knowing aspects of the future. And we know from our own experience that all the free choices we make are made in the context of many other things that are already settled. We are not able to choose the initial circumstances of our life, our basic physical make up and personality, and a number of things that happen to us along life’s way. But within this determined context there are many things we can choose—such as how we will respond to these factors that are outside of our control.
For this reason we ought to have little trouble affirming that God could control and foreknow that a future king named Josiah would destroy paganism in the land without concluding that everything about the future is settled and that God eternally knows it as such. To return to the chess analogy, the sovereign, supremely intelligent, cosmic chessmaster has declared, “In no more than seven moves I shall take your bishop.” You can of course still move however you wish. But this much of the future game has already been decided.
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism, Responding to Objections
Verse: 1 Kings 13
What did Jesus mean when he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34)?
Given Jesus’ uniform teaching about loving enemies and abstaining from violence, and given that his followers were known for their refusal to engage in violence for the first three hundred years of church history, it’s obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying he came so that his disciples would use swords. The context of Jesus’ comment makes…
Making Room for Doubt and Questions in Our Youth Curriculum
This article from a Christianity Today blog was sent to us from a reader (Thanks Laura!) reflecting on the need for making space for doubt and questions in our youth curriculum. From the article: In our Sticky Faith research, geared to help young people develop a Christian faith that lasts, a common narrative emerged: When young people asked…
Reflecting on Open2013
T. C. Moore has posted some of his reflections from the Open Theism conference. T. C. was one of several people who pulled this conference together and he did a great job. He’s also incredibly smart and very active in the open view community. Also, he’s a young church planter in Boston and I’m sure he’s…
Free Will: Is it a coherent concept?
Greg is going to be spending the next several blogs talking about the idea of free will. In this first reflection, he discusses whether it is coherent to speak of a decision that is not determined or exhaustively caused.
What is the significance of Acts 21:10–12?
While Paul and Luke were making preparations to go and preach in Jerusalem, “a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.” The prophet approached Paul, took his belt, and announced, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and will hand him…
Podcast: What is the Difference Between Open Theism and Process Thought?
Greg openly processes the major differences between Open Theism and Process Thought. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0218.mp3