Foreknowledge

A good example.
“And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.”(Zech. 1:11)
Interestingly, the word rest isn’t shabot but rather shaqat which is a rest having to do with being “on course.” If you read the passage, the “horns” are the ones who have oppressed the people of the land of Judah and they are crushing them. In other words, “it’s my way or else.”
“Things are well, everythings going exactly according to plan. The puppets are dancing just as we desire!!
God’s solution. 4 fruitful craftsmen to fray (scatter) them.

“Let us make them according to our image”………

Greek tragedy sounds more like antichrist (ism) 🙂 to me!!

YHWH bless you and keep you…….

What is known by God (the future) is not known by man unless God chooses to reveal it. We do, however, (partially) know our future by God’s dealings with us in the past. We are not totally blind to the future but “hope” (live with confident expectation) in the goodness of – the mercies of – and the Sovereignty of God. This hope (confident expectation) we have is based upon a Book- one that is written by men who were inspired by God. ~ Comfort (strengthen, encourage) one another with these (His) words! ~
If there is one thing I know.. – it is that I don’t know! But I do know the One “who knows,” and He is good! (all the time!)- And all the time- He is good! How does “any man” know this? ~ It is written: “For the LORD is good (!) His mercies are everlasting, and HIs truth endures to all generations.”
Shall we continue? ~ Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For (because) our momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison..He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak.
Shall we continue? – Those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint ~

In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope

Is Christ alone!

~Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.. ~

I really don’t think we can just pull out verse 29 from context but, if we want to then, okay.

What does it mean that God “foreknew” people?
– the word “foreknew” is based upon the common Greek word (ginōskō), “to know.”
– In Semitic or Hebrew culture, to “know” someone means to have covenant relationship with them.
– To “foreknow” means to enact a covenant relationship in advance.

“Know” = Covenant Relationship

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of Adonai.” (Gen 4:1, ESV)

“For I have chosen him [literally “known him”], so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of Adonai by doing righteousness and justice, so that Adonai may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” (Gen 18:19)

“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know Adonai,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares Adonai, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer 31:34)

You only have I chosen [literally “known”] among all the families of the earth; Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities. (Amos 3:2)

In other words. “those whom He foreknew” means:
– that from all eternity God set His love upon those whom He would save.
– that from all eternity God committed Himself to save those He had chosen from every nation, tribe, family, and language.
– that God committed Himself in covenant to those whom He would give eternal life.

Those whom He foreknew: God’s covenant commitment to save those upon whom He has set His love.
Predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son: the pre-ordained means by which God saves those whom He has chosen; pre-arranging all things to work together to bring about conformity to Yeshua in the lives of the elect.
The salvation of the elect is not primarily for their own comfort or safety, but for the glory of Yeshua.
Yeshua as firstborn:
– having the pre-eminence; an exalted position
– unique; the first among many
– Our being conformed to the image of Yeshua is the primary means by which we give Him glory.

I think we really need to at least include verse 30 as well.

Romans 8:30
and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

“these … He also called”:
– This is the effectual call of God through the work of His Ruach, opening the heart of the elect to receive the Gospel and believe in Yeshua.
– All who are called in this manner respond positively.

“these … He also justified”:
– Through the work of the Ruach, the elect respond positively to the Gospel, repenting of their sin and exercising faith in Yeshua.
– As such, they are justified before God, i.e., they are declared to be righteous by God Himself.

“these … He also glorified”:
– To be glorified means to be resurrected to eternal life; to have gained immortality, never again to be confronted with death or dying.
– That Paul states this in past tense (aorist) means that our glorification, though future, is as sure as if it had already taken place.

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
(Num 23:19)
For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.
(2Cor 1:20)
Many of the above notes are from our Romans study we’ve been doing for the last 3 years.
Note: I forgot to add the following on the word “foreknow”. “proegnō” (προεγνω) is the aorist form of proginōskō (προγινωσκω). Proginōskō has the root ginōskō, “to know,” and the prefix pro means “before.” Thus, “to know before,” or in older English, “to foreknow.”

Hello Skip.
After some careful thought on the issue of whether or not it was God that hardened Pharaoh’s heart or actually a “choice” of freewill, or lack thereof, made by Pharaoh, and since I think this is a great subject matter to consider, I figured I would put some more effort into it. What really troubled me was your reply to me that somehow God has to “wait” for us to make our “freewill choice” before He’s able to act. That just goes against what I read in the text about a sovereign God and specifically what we read here in Exodus. So, I looked at every credible translation I have, as well as the Hebrew language, looking into the comment you made on the “four verbs”, I decided I’m not a Hebrew language scholar, and simply didn’t currently have the time to read your book, but, I know a few people that are, so I asked Tim Hegg, from Torah Resource Institute, about it. And the following, although lengthy, is his reply.

“God not only assures Moses that it is safe for him to return to Egypt but He also informs him in advance that Pharaoh will not listen to his request to let the people go. The reason for Pharaoh’s recalcitrance, how- ever, is at first confusing—Pharaoh will reject Moses’ request because God Himself will harden his heart (4:21): “… but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.” Here we come face to face with the age old question of God’s sovereignty and man’s will. If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart even before Moses ever approached him, how could Pharaoh be held responsible for his actions? This is the very question asked by the Apostle Paul (Rom 9:19): “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’” In other words, if God controls the heart, then is the individual responsible for his or her responses? Paul’s answer is clear (9:20): “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” In other words, the sovereignty of God is beyond our ability to understand and give full explanation. Even as a pot has no ability to question the will of the potter, so mankind lacks the ability to understand the mystery and greatness of God. In the end, we must affirm both sides of the equation: God is the One Who controls all things, and each individual person is held responsible for his or her choices. The fact that we cannot reconcile these two realities in no way diminishes either of them. All who are truly redeemed by God’s grace, however, have no difficulty confessing that their salvation is in every way the result of God’s grace, not something they deserved or earned.

In general, the debates that have ensued over the issue of God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart have taken two different perspectives. On the one hand, some have found the whole idea that God would harden a person’s heart against Himself so repugnant that they cannot accept this as true. As such, they either reject the Bible’s revelation of God (“I can’t accept a God Who would diminish a person’s free will”), or they seek to find ways to reinterpret those passages that affirm God’s sovereign control in the affairs of men. One such approach for our specific text is to say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and those verses that say God hardened it should be understood to mean not that God was active in hardening Pharaoh’s heart, but that He simply allowed Pharaoh to harden his own heart.

Both of these perspectives, however, begin with a view of God that is clearly unbiblical. The Bible does not present God as someone who must answer to anyone other than Himself. God is not required to submit Himself to any law or standard which resides above Him. He is, by nature, fully consistent with His own character, but does not “play second fiddle” to any other sovereign or law. As such, all that is righteous is determined by God Himself. It is therefore both unbiblical and illogical to subject God and His actions to the scrutiny of some supposed standard of “fairness.” God, and all He does, is the standard of righteousness and fairness.
The idea that God only confirmed what Pharaoh had already decided is not satisfying either, for the simple reason that salvation is only possible where God breaks in and overrides man’s decisions. That is to say, for God to allow man to go his own way is in every case to condemn that person to damnation, for only when God breaks into one’s life and over-powers the will does that person turn from wickedness to serve God with a pure heart. But even from the perspective of a humanist, a God who has the power to save from damnation but does not, is as guilty as if He had condemned the person outright.

The Exodus texts make the following amply clear:
1. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he would reject the pleas of Moses and Aaron, so that God’s power in bringing Israel out of Egypt would be manifested (7:3-5, cf. Rom 9:17–18).
2. God promised Moses that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart before Moses ever stood before Pharaoh (4:21).
3. Pharaoh participated in the hardening of his own heart (8:15, 32; 9:34)
4. The story makes it clear that a “hardened heart” manifests itself in rejecting God’s commands.

There are three different words used in the texts relating to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart: חזק (chazaq), קׁשה (qashah) and כבד (kabad). The three words have various shades of meaning. חזק (chazaq), the most often used word, simply means “to be or make strong.” It can be in a good or evil sense; in this case Pharaoh’s heart was strengthened against God. קשה (qashah) means “to be difficult or heavy” and is used of “oppression, hard labor” and even of “labor in birth.” This term might be best used to describe Pharaoh’s heart as “obstinate.” כבד (kabad) generally means “to encourage or honor” or “to be heavy.” From a Hebrew perspective, to make someone or something “heavy” is to laden that thing or person with praise.

It should be noted that the only word used in connection with Pharaoh “hardening” his own heart is כבד (kabad), “to honor or encourage.” Pharaoh’s actions precede from his pride and desire to establish his own greatness. The word most often used of HaShem’s part is חזק (chazaq), “to strengthen or make strong.” In other words, God strengthened Pharaoh’s heart to remain rebellious against His command. The one time HaShem “encourages” Pharaoh in his pride (10:1) makes it clear that God acts sovereignly to accomplish His purposes and plans. While it may seem that God “dirties” His hands by encouraging Pharaoh’s pride, the reality is simply that God encourages Pharaoh to be what he in fact is: selfish and prideful. In this regard we may have an illustration of what the Apostle Paul speaks of in Romans 1:28, “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind ….” In other words, apart from God’s gracious intervention in the life of an individual, drawing that person to Himself, no one would ever come to Him (cf. Jn 6:44; Rom 3:9–18).

The following chart lists each occurrence in Exodus of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Where the subject of the verb is clearly known, it is indicated. Blanks indicate the subject of the verb is ambiguous.

In 4:22 we find the first clear use of the name “Israel” to designate the nation formed from the sons of Jacob. Moreover, Israel is designated as the firstborn son of Adonai: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.” This statement is foundational for the subsequent exodus story, for Adonai saves His “firstborn” but takes the life of each firstborn of the Egyptians. This important use of “firstborn” may also help us understand another difficult passage in our parashah, namely, the encounter between God and Moses as they lodged on their way to Egypt.

As Moses and his family stopped for the night, the text states that “Adonai met him and sought to put him to death.” The pronouns are ambiguous. Was God angry with Moses or with his son? Whom was He about to put to death? It would seem that the divine anger was directed toward Moses, not his son, but what HaShem about to take the life of the son because of Moses? But why would God be angry with Moses when He had clearly sent him to Egypt and Moses had complied with Adonai’s directions? This reminds us of the Balaam Oracles where Balaam is instructed by God to travel with the men who are about to arrive, and then the text says that God was angry with Balaam because he was going and the Angel of Adonai stood in his way to stop him (Num 22:20–22).

Even more puzzling is the manner in which the anger of God against Moses is assuaged. The issue revolves around the fact that one of the sons of Moses was not yet circumcised. The Sages are divided as to which son this was. Some (cf. b.Ned 32a; Mid. Rab. Exodus 5.8) taught that Eliezar, the secondborn, was born on the way to Egypt, and since (like the Israelites who did not perform circumcision in the wilderness) circumcising an infant while traveling presented possible life-threatening dangers, Moses had put off the circumcision until later. But this would not explain God’s wrath over the whole matter. Others of the Sages (Saadia, Ramban) believe it was Gershom, the firstborn, who remained uncircumcised, and a number of factors could have contributed to this neglect on Moses’ part. In some of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures, circumcision was ridiculed, and this may have contributed to Moses’ hesitation to circumcise Gershom on the eighth day as God had commanded. Or it is possible that Gershom was very weak as a newborn, and the circumcision was put off for health reasons but then neglected. Whatever the case, it may be the bold statement regarding Israel as God’s firstborn son (v. 22) that informs this perplexing story. Here is Moses, on his way to lead God’s firstborn son out of Egypt, His covenant people who would soon stand at Sinai and receive the Torah, and Moses himself had neglected to circumcise his own firstborn son had, in this sense, diminished the importance of the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the very covenant that would form the basis for God’s decisive action on behalf of Israel. If Moses were to lead the people in strength, then he would have to show himself to be faithful to God’s commandments. Neglecting to circumcise his own firstborn son would severely draw into question his own allegiance to the God he confessed to serve. Indeed, the exodus itself is centered in the covenant faithfulness of God toward His people, and thus it was incumbent upon His chosen leader, Moses, that the covenant also be held in highest regard.

Zipporah apparently understood this. Taking a flint knife, she circumcises her son. It should not go unnoticed that the normal word for “circumcising” (מול) is not used here but rather the common word “to cut” (כרת). Perhaps this is to parallel the common Hebrew expression for making a covenant, i.e., כרת ברית, karat b’rit, “to cut a covenant.” Then, in some kind of ceremonial act, Zipporah touches the severed foreskin of her son to “his feet (or legs)” (4:25), but once again we are not sure to whom the pronoun refers. The NASB inserts “feet of Moses” and the NIV puts “Moses” in brackets, while the ESV includes “Moses” but adds a marginal note. But the Hebrew has only “his feet,” and it may well be that this refers to the feet of the son, not of Moses. If so, this may have been done in order to show that the circumcision had been completed. Does this putting of the blood upon the feet parallel the putting of the blood upon the doorposts in the exodus from Egypt? In both cases, the blood acts as a sign which preserves life.

Then Zipporah proclaims (apparently to Moses): “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood for me” (ּכִי ִלי ַאָּתה ֲחַתן־ָּדִמים). All of this seems very strange, and no clear explanation can be given for the meaning of Zipporah’s words. It may be that by “bridegroom of blood” she implies that Moses’ life was spared through her having accomplished the circumcision of her son. Though some commentators have tried to link this with the custom in other Semitic peoples who circumcised a male just prior to his marriage, there is nothing in the context to warrant such a connection. Though perplexing, this story most likely is included here to emphasize the fact that obedience to maintain the covenant was all-important as the exodus event drew near, and particularly important for Moses who would be acting as God’s direct agent in leading the exodus of Israel from Egypt. He could not rightly be God’s covenant agent to His firstborn if he had neglected to administer the sign of the covenant to his own firstborn son.

The story continues by alerting us to the fact that God also instructed Aaron to go to the desert to meet Moses. Their meeting takes place at “the mountain of God” which is Sinai, the very region where Moses encountered the burning bush and received his instructions to return to Egypt. After meeting Aaron, they inform the “elders” as well as the people about God’s plan. Performing the miracles in their sight confirmed that God was active on their behalf, and thus “the people believed” and bowed and worshipped God Who had shown His faithfulness to help them in accordance with the promises He had made (4:31).

Chapter 5 gives us the account of Moses and Aaron’s first approach to Pharaoh. We already know that he will refuse their request to send the people forth to worship Adonai. Pharaoh makes it clear that he has no allegiance to Adonai (“I do not know Adonai,” 5:2) and thus is not required to obey His commands. Instead, he accuses Moses and Aaron of subversion and makes the servitude of the people harsher. Instead of supplying them with the necessary materials for making sun-hardened brick, he requires them to gather their own materials, but keeps the daily quota the same. The people were therefore required to do far more work than before. Moreover, those foremen who had been appointed to oversee the work were beaten when the quota was not met. Clearly, rather than bringing hope to the people, the meeting which Moses and Aaron had with Pharaoh had resulted in a much, much worse situation.

From the posture of worship, the people turned upon Moses and Aaron: “They said to them, “May Adonai look upon you and judge you, for you have made us odious in Pharaoh’s sight and in the sight of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to kill us” (5:21). Such dire straits brought Moses to address the Almighty: “Why have You brought harm to this people? Why did you ever send me? …You have not delivered Your people at all!” (5:23). It is easy for us to shake our heads at the apparent unbelief, both of the people as well as of Moses. Had not God promised to deliver them? Had not God promised to be with Moses and Aaron and to make their mission successful? Yet if we can, for a moment, put ourselves in their situation, we might wonder how we would have fared in our own belief and the stamina of our faith. How often do we, in far less difficult situations, fail to exercise a persevering faith in God and succumb rather to complaint and discouragement?

But note well God’s response to Moses. He does not rebuke Moses, nor chastise him for his apparent lack of understanding and faith. Rather, He reaffirms His own plan to deal sovereignly with Pharaoh and with Egypt as a whole. “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh…” (5:23). Often God must bring us to the end of ourselves before we will acknowledge and trust His greatness. The exodus would not be effected by Moses or Aaron, even if they were valiant leaders. The redemption from Egypt would be by the sovereign, omnipotent hand of God Himself. And this could have only been the case, for the exodus was forever to stand as an historical drama revealing God’s way of redemption. God, and God alone, is the One Who saves, and the exodus, in every detail, will emphasize this over and over again.”

P.S. I guess my point is that when I look at Pharoah’s paradigm, I see the toe-to-toe challenge of his religion vs. the True one. There can be no challenge; no real contest, if the outcome has already been rigged from the outset. But there is no room for true respect in that, is there? No respect for the creature by his Creator, but also no room possible back for respect for the creature toward his Creator. If there is no true room for respect, there is no room for change; only room for hate and fear. Why would YHVH love Pharoah, who was raised in the same household as Moses at the same time, any less than He loved any of the rest of us?

Please forgive me in advance for rampant quoting of another source, as I am no scholar, and most certainly not an Egyptian one! And please correct me, too! But here goes:

So many times we can only see the big wooden horse in the middle of our town, or only the shells on the table; we do not go looking for things OUTSIDE direct causal connection. But look at the Exodus’ Pharoah’s (Thutmosis III) family. Look at the HUGE changes that occurred right after him. First of all, look at the murder of Moses’ wonderful adoptive mother, Hatshepsut, who took the throne after Moses had refused it. I wonder why she was forced to share it with the illigitimate half-son of the Pharaoh, Thutmosis II? Why were all her records of her reign before him destroyed, and why was she eventually probably murdered? Look at the change from the worship of many gods to the attempt to install worship of the One, instituted by Amen-hotep III, the Exodus’ Pharoah’s grandson? And look at his son, the husband of the lovely woman Nefertiti, who changed his name to Akhen-aten, and look at the legacy he left for his six daughters, one who married a man who was named Tutank-aten, who later mysteriously changed his name back to Tutank-amen. Look also at the attempt to introduce the idea, the very WORD FOR, Truth itself, which Akhen-aten invented, because Egypt had none for it. He is referred to as the “first individualist in history”. Hmm I wonder why. After he moved the capital city from Thebes, the City of the gods, commissioned many amazing portraits with him loving his family, obviously converted many around him, judging by all the name-changing that went on, they were all mysteriously murdered or forcibly converted. The names went back. Like King Tut’s. Hmm

Only after that, did Egypt go into decline.