How do you respond to Daniel 2:31–45?

Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to the effect that he possesses a kingdom of “gold” (vs. 38). After this there shall arise “another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze which shall rule over the whole earth. And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron…it shall crush and shatter all these” (vs. 39–40).

There is a good deal of scholarly debate about which kingdoms Daniel is referring to, complicated by the fact that scholars even disagree over the dating and authorship of this work. This need not concern us, however. For the purposes of our present investigation we may grant that the text presupposes that God foreknows the succession and relative strength of several future kingdoms. Does this mean that everything about the future is settled and known by God as such? I don’t see why we should conclude this.

The Lord in his infinite wisdom is able to providentially determine the general duration and parameters of national powers without thereby determining or foreknowing what every free agent within those nations will do. God sovereignly outlines the skeletal structure of his providential plan and allows the decisions of free agents to flesh it out. A ship that is bound for the coast of Italy is in this sense predestined, though the people on the ship are free to move around as they please.

Perhaps a better analogy is to be found in a children’s “Choose Your Own Adventure” book. In these books an author writes a number of possible story lines and allows the reader to create their own story by choosing between them. The author provides a structure to the book as a whole as well as to each possible story line within the overall structure. But there is also room for freedom on the part of the reader to create their own story by choosing between the alternatives that the author has given.

This is a model (albeit, radically simplified) of how we may understand God’s sovereign design allowing for some openness in the future. The “God of the possible” is the author and governor of the whole story line of creation as well as the one who offers various possible alternatives to his human creations. The rise and fall of nations, it seems, is usually providentially guided according to God’s plans for world history (cf. Dan. 2:20). But within this general guidance there is plenty of room for individuals to exercise free will.

Along these lines, Paul proclaims that God “made all the nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live” (Acts 17:26). This is part of the structural outline of God’s plan for world history. These providential parameters certainly condition the scope of human freedom, but they do not destroy it—just as our genes and environment condition our individual freedom without destroying it.

Paul himself says that God sets up these times and boundaries for nations with the hope “that they [the nations] would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him” (Acts 17:27). There is, we see, ordained structure balanced by freedom. God determines whatever he sees fit and leaves as much of the future open to a “perhaps” as he sees fit. The “God of the possible” creates the “Choose Your Own Adventure” skeletal outline of world history within which the possibilities of human free choice are actualized.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics: ,
Verse:

Related Reading

What is Open Theism?

Open Theism is the view that God chose to create a world that included free agents, and thus a world where possibilities are real. The future is pre-settled, to whatever degree God wants to pre-settle it and to whatever degree the inevitable consequences of the choices of created agents have pre-settled it. But the future…

Isn’t the World Unsafe If God Doesn’t Control Everything?

If God isn’t in control of everything, the world feels unsafe. If the future is open and if things can happen outside of God’s will, what guarantee is there that there is a point to a person’s suffering? Maybe it’s all just bad luck. My experience has been that many of those who honestly examine…

What is the significance of 1 Samuel 2:27–31?

Because Eli “scorned” God’s sacrifices and did not punish his sons for their vile behavior, the Lord says, “‘I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will…

Topics:

Don’t Wilberforce’s achievements refute your stance on the separation of faith and politics?

Question: William Wilberforce was a Christian whose passionate involvement in politics almost single-handedly brought an end to the slave trade in 19th century England. Don’t his achievements show the importance of Christians being involved in politics, thus refuting your contention that Christian’s should keep their faith and values separate from politics? Answer: First, while I…

What is the significance of Ezekiel 12:1–3?

The Lord has Ezekiel symbolically enact Israel’s exile as a warning and remarks, “Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house” (vs. 3). Though Israel repeatedly surprised God by their persistent rebellion, he nevertheless continued to hold out hope and thus to strive with them to participate in a covenant relationship with him.…

Topics:

Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge to God

A historic overview and critical assessment Abstract: The traditional Christian view that God foreknows the future exclusively in terms of what will and will not come to pass is partially rooted in two ancient Hellenistic philosophical assumptions. Hellenistic philosophers universally assumed that propositions asserting’ x will occur’ contradict propositions asserting’ x will not occur’ and…