Predestination and Jehovah’s Foreknowledge

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”—Acts 15:18.

 1. How do predestination and foreknowledge differ?

JEHOVAH has the power of predestination and the faculty of foreknowledge. What he predestinates takes place because he has foreordained that it shall, regardless of what any creature in the universe may do to hinder or halt it. What he foreknows takes place because of the infallibility of his power of perception into the future, the exercise of which in no way does violence to the free will of any creature. Generally, predestination has to do with classes or groups and with events, without foreordaining the specific individuals that will be involved in these classes or events. On the other hand, divine foreknowledge does not limit itself to groups or events but frequently indicates specific individuals that will be involved in them.

 2. What was the nation of Israel?

² Our preceding issue laid a solid basis for the position that when the Greek Scriptures speak of predestination or foreordination relative to those who will reign with Christ in heaven, they are referring to such ones as a class and not as individuals. The same is true when Jehovah expresses his purpose to have a holy nation. In ancient time Israel became the typical holy nation, for to it Jehovah said: “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” Again, “Thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.” (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 7:6, AS) It was an elect or chosen nation, spoken of as “Israel mine elect”.—Isa. 45:4.

 3. Though of an elect nation, individual Israelites might fail in what?

³ But the mere fact that it was an elect nation did not automatically include every individual Israelite as a finally chosen one. Jehovah himself destroyed many of them in the wilderness journeyings and thereafter, as well as allowing enemies to reduce their ranks because of unfaithfulness. When Christ came only a remnant of the Jews accepted him, and non-Israelites were brought in to complete the foreordained number of the “Israel of God”. (Gal. 6:15, 16; Eph. 2:11-22, NW) It was not enough to be a Jew outwardly, in a fleshly way. Members of the “Israel of God” must be Jews inwardly, in a spiritual way. (Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:6, NW) When too few natural Israelites accepted the Messiah, “God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” When natural Israelite branches refused to bear godly fruitage they were broken off and heretofore wild Gentile branches were grafted in to take their place. Thus did God, when the sensibilities of many in natural Israel were dull to their duty, bring in Gentiles to complete the foreordained number of spiritual Israel, or the “Israel of God”: “A dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved.”—John 15:1-8; Acts 15:14; Rom. 11:17-21, 25, 26, NW.

 4. What shows spiritual Israel includes Gentiles, and where does the “great crowd” fit in in type and antitype?

⁴ That God’s typical holy nation, natural Israel, foreshadowed spiritual Israel, and that the latter would be made up in part by Gentiles, is shown by Peter’s application of Exodus 19:6 and Deuteronomy 7:6 to Christ’s body-members composed of both Jew and Gentile: “You are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies’ of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. For you were once not a people, but are now God’s people.” (1 Pet. 2:9, 10, NW) The complete number of those who reign with Christ is fixed at 144,000. (Rev. 14:1-4) At Revelation 7:4-8 this same number is apportioned among the twelve tribes of Israel, and since this is the complete number and includes Gentiles, the Israel referred to here must be spiritual Israel. The “great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues” next seen could not be of the heavenly class, for that would swell the number far beyond the foreordained 144,000. (Rev. 7:9, NW) Actually, it makes the parallel complete. Just as when typical natural Israel left Egypt they were accompanied by a “mixed multitude” of non-Israelites, so in the antitype when spiritual Israel separates from this old world under Satan a great multitude, a Gentile crowd when compared with spiritual Israel, associates with them. Salvation they gain through Christ’s redeeming blood.—Rev. 7:10, 14.

 5. What does all this disclose relative to predestination?

⁵ What does all this disclose relative to predestination? It shows that though natural Israel was elect as a nation, many of that nation fell away and only a remnant remained faithful. Being typical of spiritual Israel, it shows that spiritual Israel is elect as a class or holy nation, but not as to individuals comprising its numbers, for many individuals fell away and only a remnant of the total numbers once called, sanctified, justified, redeemed and of the election remains faithful. Moreover, the foregoing shows that not just the elect or chosen spiritual Israel that reigns with Christ in heaven are redeemed by Christ’s blood, but a great crowd with no fixed or predestinated number also come under the ransom’s saving benefits. Presbyterians, chief champions of predestination, deny this, saying: “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ . . . but the elect only.”a In contending that only the elect ones who reign with Christ are saved, the predestinarians pose another dilemma for themselves: Since the elect or chosen ones become a part of the Abrahamic seed, along with Christ Jesus, who are the families and nations of the earth blessed by this seed? (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; Gal. 3:16, 29) Actually, it is an earthly class whose numbers are drawn from all nations, and the present-day part of which becomes the “great crowd” of Revelation 7:9.

FOREKNOWLEDGE CONCERNING INDIVIDUALS

 6. Do the cases of Samson, Jeremiah and John the Baptist support predestination?

⁶ In trying to prove their point that individuals generally are predestinated, devotees of that doctrine will cite as cases in proof such individuals as Samson, Jeremiah, Cyrus, Esau and Jacob, John the Baptist, Judas, and also Jesus. It is true that before their birth Jehovah foreknew that Samson would begin to deliver Israel, that Jeremiah would be a prophet to the nations, and that John the Baptist would perform a work like Elijah’s in preparing the people for Messiah’s coming. (Judg. 13:3-5; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:13-17) However, these cases do not match the doctrine of predestination. That doctrine requires that the final destiny of individuals be inflexibly ordained from before the time of Adam and Eve; but there is no evidence of that in these cases. There is nothing to indicate that God’s foreknowledge as to these specific individuals existed much before the time of conception. Moreover, that foreknowledge seemed to concern their activities rather than final destinies; whereas predestination concerns final destinies, and that “without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature”.b The divine foreknowledge shown in these cases is something quite different from predestination.

 7. Why does not the case of Esau and Jacob support predestination, and why did Jehovah handle it as he did?

⁷ The pronouncement concerning the twins Esau and Jacob was not made before Adam and Eve’s creation, but while the babes were in their mother’s womb; neither was it concerning final destiny, but was, “the elder shall serve the younger.” It meant the younger, in contrast with the usual procedure, was to get the birthright that ordinarily went to the first-born son and which made him, upon the death of his father, head of his father’s household and made his other brothers subservient to him. And all this was “when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls”. One of these twin boys would get the birthright, which in this case carried with it the Abrahamic promise. While making the selection before birth, before either had done good or bad, Jehovah showed that the choosing of those sharing in the Abrahamic promise was not dependent upon works. This was a contrast with the Law covenant, which caused the Jews to stress works. It highlighted undeserved kindness or grace, and the spirit. It left the selection entirely up to the one who calls candidates for these blessings, namely, Jehovah God. His free choice in this matter, completely unbound by customs or usual procedures according to men’s expectations, such as giving the birthright to first-born sons, is further emphasized by his selection of the younger son instead of the older one. So Jehovah was clarifying his purpose concerning his covenant, not indulging in a whim, by acting as he did in the case of Esau and Jacob.—Gen. 25:23-26; 27:29, 37; 28:13, 14; Rom. 9:11, NW.

 8. Why was this no eternal condemnation of Esau, and yet how did he turn out in vindication of Jehovah’s foreknowledge?

⁸ Jehovah’s decision to give the birthright to Jacob or his allowing the older Esau to be a temporary slave to the younger one did not predestinate Esau to eternal condemnation, as predestinarians must contend. Being in a subservient position did not prohibit Esau from gaining God’s approval. Did not some of the Canaanites, even though under an inspired curse to serve the descendants of Shem, attach themselves to Israel and gain Jehovah’s blessing? (Gen. 9:25-27; Josh. 9:27) And as for the birthright, receiving it is not a requirement for salvation. If so, then only first-born sons would be saved and all others automatically condemned. And what about Jehovah’s statement: “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau”? (Mal. 1:2, 3; Rom. 9:13, NW) The record does not specifically state that this judgment was entered while the babes were in Rebekah’s womb, that it did not await their subsequent conduct as a basis for it. But regardless of that possibility, Jehovah’s power of foreknowledge could disclose to him the course each twin would take and provide all the needed basis for loving one and hating the other. His power to read the inherent dispositions of unborn babes cannot be doubted. Certainly Esau had such a disposition, and it persisted despite the good religious training he received from his parents. In contrast with Jacob’s faithfulness, Esau was an irresponsible hunter, sought out the accursed heathen women as wives, showed contempt for the Abrahamic promise by selling his birthright to Jacob, and yet later tried to cheat Jacob out of the birthright that was Jacob’s by both purchase and God’s gift. Of his own free will Esau did all this and earned Jehovah’s hatred.—Gen. 25:27-34; 26:34, 35; 27:34-36, 46; 1 Sam. 16:7; Job 31:15; Eccl. 11:5.

 9. Why cannot the cases of Judas, Peter and Cyrus prove predestination?

⁹ Jehovah God prophesied that one of the apostles of Jesus would betray Jesus, but the specific one is not named. (Ps. 41:9; 109:8) There is no evidence for saying that Jesus knew when he chose Judas Iscariot that this was to be the betrayer. However, Jesus’ power from Jehovah enabled him to perceive the thoughts and intents of the human mind and heart, and as soon as Judas began drifting in that direction Jesus was aware of it. To demonstrate that he was the Messiah he spoke of this coming betrayal in advance: “From this moment on I am telling you before it occurs, in order that when it does occur you may believe that I am he.” (John 2:24, 25; 6:64, 70, 71; 13:11, 18-30; Rev. 2:23, NW) The predictions made that identified Judas personally as the betrayer came after he was grown, after he was an apostle. The same may be said for those involving Peter personally, as to his denial of Christ, his recovery afterward, and the way he would die. (Mark 14:30; Luke 22:31, 32, 34; John 21:17-19) None of this could be called predestination, the fixing of individuals’ destinies before the original world’s foundation. As for Cyrus, it was by Jehovah’s prophetic power of foreknowledge that he was named as the one to overthrow Babylon and release Israelite captives, and this some two hundred years before the event occurred. But Presbyterian or Calvinist predestination is not involved. It did not fix Cyrus’ final destiny. He did not become a true worshiper of Jehovah, but served many false gods, and never became of Jehovah’s elect class.—Isa. 45:1-4.

10. Despite its exceptionalness, what about Jesus’ case?

¹⁰ As for Jesus, his earthly course and final destiny as the Seed of God’s woman and King of the new world were not predestinated before the foundation of the original world. It was after the fall of the first pair that prophecies began to be given concerning Christ Jesus. (Gen. 3:15) The Hebrew Scriptures do identify him as Jehovah’s elect or chosen One. (Isa. 42:1) He was foreknown before the new world’s foundation at the time of his death, and was “one delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God”. (Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8, NW) Without predestinating the specific individuals to act against him when on earth, the prophecies did predict many of the events that occurred: “Even so, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with men of nations and with peoples of Israel were in actuality gathered together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you made Christ, in order to do what things your hand and counsel had determined beforehand to occur.” (Acts 4:27, 28, NW) But whether Jesus’ case be called predestination or foreknowledge, it was highly exceptional and does not prove individual predestination for all persons from before the time of Adam and Eve.

11. Why was divine foreknowledge exercised in the foregoing cases?

¹¹ In fact, all the foregoing cases involving the exercise of divine foreknowledge relative to the course of individuals are very exceptional. These persons were concerned in special ways in Jehovah’s purposes, being types or patterns or fulfillments of prophecies, or in some other way being used to contribute to the enlightenment of Jehovah’s people or to show forth Jehovah’s power. Jehovah can and does maneuver events in their affairs so that all works out for the fulfillment of his foreknowledge. But these few exceptional cases that did involve Jehovah’s foreknowledge cannot be used to successfully prove he has exercised a similar degree of foreknowledge in the case of every human creature.

12. Why do Acts 15:18 and Romans 8:28 fail to help predestinarians?

¹² In an endeavor to prove such a complete exercise of foreknowledge some quote Acts 15:18: “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” The New World Translation renders Ac 15 verses 17 and 18 as follows: “Jehovah, who is doing these things which he has known from of old.” A marginal reading is, “who has been making these things known from of old.” Regardless of the version used, it is clear that Jehovah is here showing that he foreknew his works. It does not say that he foreknows the works of every person. Nor may Romans 8:28 be properly used to prove God foreknew all events or acts of men: “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God.” More accurate translation shows it is the works of God, not the deeds of men who may persecute, that are for the good of his servants: “We know that God makes all his works cooperate together for the good of those who love God.” (NW) Jesus showed that when men fall victims to violence or accidents it cannot rightly be attributed to fatalism or predestination, but that it is more in line with the fact that “time and chance happen to all of them”.—Eccl. 9:11, AT; Luke 13:1-5.

13. Why can we not say Jehovah foreknew the fall of the covering cherub and Adam and Eve?

¹³ Can it be said that Jehovah foreknew that the covering cherub placed over Adam and Eve in Eden would turn rebel? Or that Jehovah foreknew that Adam and Eve would succumb to that rebel’s temptings? Neither Scripturally nor logically can it be maintained. The Bible shows that Jehovah’s foreknowledge is exercised regarding his works, but the cherub’s rebellion and Adam and Eve’s transgression were not works of Jehovah. He did not intrude his powers of foreknowledge into the affairs of these creatures. He is not a suspicious God, always suspecting his creatures, seeking to find flaws in their mind and heart, looking for trouble. He waits and allows them to manifest their failures. A man may go straight until some special temptation faces him, and then flaws in his integrity show up. So it apparently was with the cherub. After being assigned to his position and after Adam and Eve were created, the situation became a temptation to the cherub. Not a temptation from Jehovah, but one that the improper thoughts and desires of the cherub created for himself. (Jas. 1:13-15; 1 John 2:15-17) He saw the human pair, knew of their power to multiply, the divine command for them to do so, and envisioned the earth filled with human creatures. He wanted their worship, and proceeded to alienate this first pair from Jehovah’s worship. But all that Jehovah had foreordained in these matters was that obedience would mean life and disobedience would mean death, and he so informed Adam, and through him Eve.—Gen. 2:16, 17.

14. Why would Jehovah not need to foreknow their rebellion to cope with it?

¹⁴ In the face of absolutely no Scriptural evidence that Jehovah foreknew this trio’s transgressions, on what basis can it be argued that he did? No sound basis. He would not have to foreknow the rebellion of these three in order to cope with it. Nor need he foreknow the works of demons and men at this time in order to accomplish his purposes. No more so than would a man, intending to cut the weeds from a plot of ground to make a garden, have to foreknow the acts of insects dwelling in the jungle of weeds and which constitutes their home. Regardless of what the insects might do, they could no more prevent the man from cutting the weeds than man could prevent God from accomplishing the divine works. God needs to foreknow man’s opposing efforts no more so than the man needs to foreknow the insect’s. (Isa. 40:22) In either case the intended purpose can be carried out regardless of the opposition, since it is so insignificantly feeble in comparison with the power of the purposer.—Isa. 46:11; 55:11.

Foreknowledge Compatible with Free Will

“I know what their temperament will lead to, even now, before I bring them into the land, which I promised them on oath.”—Deut. 31:21, AT.

 1. How do Presbyterian teachings deny man’s free will?

IT IS not denied by predestinarians that men are free moral agents, yet their own teachings certainly deny it. Do not the following statements from their publication rob of real meaning their contention that men are free to will good? “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.” But when God intervenes to convert an otherwise helpless sinner he “enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good”.a God promises to “give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe”.b So those not ordained have no free will or ability to believe. Similarly, God is “renewing and powerfully determining their wills” in order to make men “willing and able” to answer his call.c Even after starting in the right way the “perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election”.d And where is the free will of individuals to be found in their statement that God is “governing all his creatures; ordering them, and all their actions”?e If God did “unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass”, and to show his sovereign power over some did “ordain them to dishonor and wrath”, and to show his grace toward others did predestinate them to life “without any foresight of faith or good works”, then how can it be argued that there is no “violence offered to the will of the creatures”? Yet such is the caliber of predestinarian logic. Little wonder they give up reasoning on the matter and refer to their doctrine as “this high mystery of predestination”!f

 2. In what respect do Presbyterians parrot the Pharisees?

² From all eternity God is supposed to have decreed whatsoever takes place, and to have fixed the destiny of all men and angels to either everlasting life or everlasting death, yet neither making use of his foreknowledge to do it nor violating the free will of any creature in doing it.g To fit into such a scheme Jehovah would have to create each individual in such a way that it would automatically do just what he had predestined for it to do. This puts the predestinarians in the same doctrinal boat with the Pharisees, about whom Josephus wrote: “When they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously.”h From the foregoing it is evident that predestinarians pay only lip service to individual free will, while doctrinally denying it in all practical respects.

HOW JEHOVAH MOLDS US

 3. What do some contend, and how do they support their contention?

³ Some will contend that Jehovah God does shape man in such a way as to force him into a certain course of conduct, doing violence to the creature’s freedom of will or choice, and thus making things work out according to the divine predestination of matters. They cite the text that speaks of Jehovah as the great Potter and men as helpless clay to be molded as he sees fit. Also they point to the time when God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, which hardness brought Pharaoh into destruction in the Red sea. Can these cases be harmonized with individual freedom of will? Yes, and by way of laying a foundation for solid answers consider some points relative to changing or molding anew the human mind.

 4. How do messages from the five senses reach the brain, and what then happens?

⁴ Men know much about the mind, but much more they do not know. Yet a mixture of fact and theory gives this basic view of the mind’s function. When light enters the eye it is changed into electricity by the time it reaches the gray matter of the brain’s cerebral cortex. When sound enters the ear it reaches the gray matter as electrical impulses. Similarly messages come to the brain from the senses of smelling and tasting and feeling, reaching the brain’s cortex as electrical currents. Inside the cortex of gray matter is the white matter of the brain, and through this the gray matter sends electrical messages, to connect up with other cells or cell groups in other sections of the gray matter. Thus when the vision section sees danger it speeds messages to the motor section to inaugurate necessary muscular action, either for fight or for flight. So in all other mental processes the gray matter communicates with its various parts, doing so by setting up circuits through the white matter.

 5. What further sheds light on the brain’s operation and marvelousness?

⁵ Every thought, every action is recorded as an electrical path through the white matter. If it is an old idea or frequent act it uses the previously made circuit, strengthening and entrenching it still more. That is why repetition fixes thoughts firmly in mind, and repeated actions become habitual. They come easy thereafter, and are hard to remove. New thoughts and new deeds require the setting up of new circuits, and that is more difficult. At birth the brain of the human babe is almost blank, only a few circuits being there, such as the instinct to suck and a few other basic patterns necessary for survival. But it is not a near blank for long. The five senses pour in their messages, and as the years pass an appalling maze of circuits accumulate—more, it is estimated by scientists, than all the hookups of telephone wires, exchanges and receivers in existence. One scientist estimated that “the human brain has sufficient storage capacity to remember fifty times as much information as is contained in the seven million volumes of the Library of Congress”. Truly man is “fearfully and wonderfully made”! (Ps. 139:14) How careful we should be to take in the right thoughts, do the right deeds, set up the proper circuits, that we do not get our mental wires crossed and snarled up in evil thinking and acting!

 6. How do men and animals differ in these respects, and what makes a man what he is?

⁶ If we did not possess free will, but instead our course were fixed for us, we would not have the power of molding our minds according to our wishes, according to the things we chose to take into the brain. We would be more like creatures of instinct, like lower animals. Their brains are not so blank as humans’ at birth; most of their circuits are already there, and they can add but few thereafter. They come nearer to being predestinated at birth than do men. They primarily follow God-given instinct. Man, on the other hand, makes up his own mind. And because each one does it differently, each one is a separate individual, a distinct personality. It is a person’s thoughts and acts that make him what he is. Jehovah God so states: “Just as he hath thought in his own mind, so he is.” (Prov. 23:7, Ro) From the heart, which frequently stands for the mind, come words and acts. (Matt. 12:34; 15:19) So what a person thinks, says and does is largely governed by the mind. To change himself, to remold himself, he must change his thinking; for as he thinks, so is he.

 7. What command is given to men, and why, and how can they heed it?

⁷ Because men in this old dying world think and speak and act wrong, because such unbelievers are vessels of wrath headed for destruction, and because they must be remolded into vessels of glory to Jehovah if they are to escape being shattered like a potter’s vessel by the King’s rod at Armageddon, the vital command to them is: “Quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over.” (John 3:36; Rom. 12:2, NW) If they make their minds over they are changed persons; for as they think, so are they. They must let the old circuits put into their brains by the schemes and propagandas, the lusts and immoralities of the old world fade out through disuse, and replace them with new circuits built up by the right thinking and acting recommended by Jehovah’s new world. If so, they will be remolded into a new personality: “You should put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct and which is being corrupted according to his deceptive desires; . . . you should be made new in the force actuating your mind, and should put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loving-kindness.” “Strip off the old personality with its practices, and clothe yourselves with the new personality which through accurate knowledge is being renewed according to the image of the one who created it.”—Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9, 10, NW.

 8. Why can it be said Jehovah can change men without forcing them?

⁸ So it is by taking in accurate knowledge about Jehovah and Christ that human creatures made of dust or clay can be remolded, changed from vessels of wrath to vessels fit for divine mercy. (John 17:3) On the other hand, this information, instead of remolding men born under wrath and condemnation into vessels of glory, hardens some even more as vessels of wrath, even driving them to murder. (John 8:37-45; Acts 7:54-60; 2 Tim. 3:8) And this testimony that either hardens vessels of wrath or remolds them into vessels fit for mercy, where is it found? In God’s Word, the Bible. So through his Word Jehovah either makes persons more stubbornly wicked or changes them into his glorious servants, and this without any forcing of the creature, but rather it is as the creature himself wills to react. It is like a person that receives a letter from a certain man and which makes the person change his mind, and as a result the person says, “That man made me change my mind.” Yet there was no forcing involved; the person changed of his own free will.

 9. How is Romans 9:21-24 to be understood, and what other text shows this understanding true?

⁹ It is with this view of matters that Romans 9:21-24 (NW) should be considered: “What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use? If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction, in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it?” Does not Jehovah have a right to declare his message to all men taken from the same place, the dust of earth, and allow it to shape them for or against him, according to their own freewill reactions to its declaration? Certainly, and beforehand he indicated in his Word that one class would be hardened as vessels of wrath and another class would be flexible in their thinking when hearing the truth and welcome it and make their minds over in accord with its impact, thereby becoming vessels of mercy. That the individual himself can, by his own course in harmony with Jehovah’s will, make himself into a “vessel for an honorable use” is specifically stated at 2 Timothy 2:20-22 (NW): “Now in a large house there are vessels not only of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for an honorable purpose but others for a purpose lacking honor. If, therefore, anyone keeps clear of the latter ones, he will be a vessel for an honorable purpose, sanctified, useful to his owner, prepared for every good work. So, flee from the desires incidental to youth, but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, along with those who call upon the Lord out of a clean heart.” To say Jehovah forces men to be a good or bad vessel is unscriptural. He does mold us through his Word, for good if we will let him.

10. How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart without violating free will?

¹⁰ Now to consider the controversial text wherein Jehovah said: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.” (Ex. 7:3, 4) Now Jehovah did not actually harden the heart of Pharaoh so that Pharaoh lost his free will in the matter. His heart hardened because of the message declared to him by Moses and Aaron. It was what caused him to react in hard stubbornness and anger. But since the message Moses and Aaron declared was really Jehovah’s message, the account says Jehovah hardened his heart. The repeated extension of God’s mercy to him by the lifting of plague after plague did not soften the Egyptian ruler, but as is usual in the case of bullies and tyrants this forbearance only made Pharaoh more intolerable, brought to the fore all the more his bullying characteristics. At Exodus 8:15 the result of relief is shown: “When Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart.” And again after the lifting of one of the plagues: “Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also.” (Ex. 8:32) Also 1 Samuel 6:6 states: “The Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts.” Does it not say Pharaoh hardened his own heart? Yes, because that was actually what happened. It only says Jehovah did it because that was how Pharaoh reacted to Jehovah’s message. Mercy shown to such arrogant men only serves to let them store up more wrath against themselves. (Rom. 2:4, 5) It is not unusual for wicked men to interpret Jehovah’s long-suffering as a sign of weakness and thus become more set in their evil ways, thinking the time of reckoning will never come: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” (Eccl. 8:11) Pharaoh’s heart was so set in him.

11. How does the Bible itself interpret a similar situation, proving the viewpoint to be no private interpretation?

¹¹ The charge that such a view of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is private interpretation cannot be proved, because the Bible itself so interprets a similar expression. At Isaiah 6:10 Jehovah tells Isaiah: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” Now, God did not mean for Isaiah to actually go and fatten their hearts and stop up their ears and close their eyes to forestall any repentance; but he was predicting that that would be the effect of the message that Isaiah had been commanded to go and tell the people, that the people themselves would show closed eyes and unhearing ears and fatty hearts, that they would not repent and turn to Jehovah for healing spiritually. The message declared made these rebellious ones unreceptive because it did not please them, and since Isaiah delivered it he was said to have done these things to them. But that they did it to themselves is shown by no less an authority than Jesus himself, for in quoting this prophecy as having fulfillment upon rebellious ones in his day he said: “The heart of this people has grown thick, and with their ears they have heard with annoyance, and they have shut their eyes.” Years later Paul quoted it in the same words. Though in Isaiah’s prophecy it speaks of Isaiah as doing it, both Jesus and Paul show the people themselves did it, and not actually Isaiah.—Matt. 13:14, 15; Acts 28:25-27, NW.

12. Who makes men’s paths straight, men or God?

¹² Another instance of this is where God’s servants are commanded to “keep making straight paths for your feet”, and yet elsewhere it is said concerning Jehovah: “He will make straight your paths.” (Prov. 3:6, AT; Heb. 12:13, NW) Who makes the paths straight? Predestinarians say it is God, not men, and try to prove it by quoting Jeremiah 10:23: “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Man in himself cannot do it, but Jehovah will do it for him, not through predestination, but through His Word: “How can a young man keep his path pure? By heeding thy word.” “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light on my path.” (Ps. 119:9, 105, AT) It is you that must of your own free will “keep making straight paths for your feet”, but since you can do it only by heeding God’s Word it is also correct to say Jehovah “will make straight your paths”, by means of his Word.

FOREKNOWLEDGE NO VIOLATION OF FREE WILL

13. What shows Jehovah’s power of foreknowledge?

¹³ Jehovah God can penetrate the innermost thoughts of the mind, and foresee the course that will be taken by not only individuals but also classes. (1 Sam. 16:7; Eph. 3:20; Heb. 4:12) He created the mind that directs man, knows its intricate operation, and can instantly detect the bent of man’s mind and know what that bent of mind will eventually lead to. He took just such a measure of men’s minds before the Noachian flood, and found them unreformable. (Gen. 6:5, AT) Before the Israelites entered Canaan Jehovah gave testimony against them for future reference, to show he foreknew what their mental disposition would lead them to and that they had been forewarned: “I know what their temperament will lead to, even now, before I bring them into the land, which I promised them on oath.” (Deut. 31:21, AT) He also foreknew and described in advance as a warning for us the wickedness of men in these last days of this old world; also the existence of a “great crowd” that would serve him. (2 Tim. 3:1-5, 13; Rev. 7:9, NW) So Jehovah foreknows that the majority of mankind today will perish with Satan at Armageddon, and that only a minority will side with him and live. (Isa. 24:6; Jer. 25:33) Hence he foreknows the fate of millions as a class, and so it is no great thing if he foresees the end of an individual. Yet in general he restricts his foreknowledge to classes rather than to the individuals comprising them.

14. What are some contentions concerning foreknowledge, yet what shows free will of individuals is preserved?

¹⁴ Foreknowledge, without certain prior conditions existing by which to determine the logical result to be expected, amounts to the same thing as predestination. Predestinarians disagree, for they say predestination is not based on any foreseen works of the individuals involved, as that would make destiny-fixing dependent on future works, and that they will not accept. Yet others still contend that God’s foreknowledge that some individuals in view of certain inward conditions will fail, forces them to fail in order that the divine foreknowledge be proved right. Or, for that matter, that God’s foreknowledge that the majority will perish at Armageddon rules out any widespread conversion to godliness. Their analysis fails to reach the root of the matter. The point is, the mere exercise of his foreknowledge based on certain existing conditions is not what makes the foreseen happen. His exercise of it is a gracious service to men, for it makes possible the warnings in his Word. Since they primarily concern classes without fixing the fate of individuals, it makes it possible for individuals to put themselves in the surviving minority class and to shun the perishing majority group. To be saved individuals must be, not according to the King James Version “ordained to eternal life”, but according to modern translation “rightly disposed for everlasting life”, and such personal disposition is unaffected by foreknowledge. (Acts 13:48, NW; Ro; ED) The individual’s inmost thoughts, his heart condition and his deeds are the basis on which judgment and destiny rest. (Rev. 2:23, NW) Otherwise, why would Jehovah test persons, and why would the Devil rage like a lion to devour the faithful? The issue of integrity would become meaningless, unreal.

15. What illustrations concerning inanimate things show foreknowledge does not make things happen?

¹⁵ To illustrate how the mere exercise of such conditioned foreknowledge does not of itself destroy independent action, consider examples of the limited use human creatures make of it. An astronomer can foretell when a certain comet is going to streak through the sky, or when there will be an eclipse of the sun or moon. Does his foreknowledge of the comet’s visit or the eclipse make such things happen? An engineer may know bridges, and see a weak brace, and know that when a heavy freight train comes along the brace will give way and the bridge collapse. Does his mere knowledge of the weakness make the brace break and the bridge fall? A machinist may use X ray to see a hidden flaw within a steel part of a machine and thus know the part will break under the strain of operation. But would not the part break regardless of whether the machinist knew the weakness or not? We know the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is not our knowing that fact that makes it rise.

16. What illustrations involving animate things make the same point?

¹⁶ Or take illustrations of animate things. We know that a cat will play with a mouse and a dog will chase a rabbit. We know that because of our knowledge of cats and dogs. But our mere knowing it does not bring it about. If we were totally ignorant of the ways of cats and dogs when in the presence of mice and rabbits, the tormenting play and the frantic chase would still take place. You may know someone who is an alcoholic, and know that when he begs money from someone he is going to spend it for liquor. But your foreknowledge of that does not make him do it. When you have close friends and learn their mannerisms or mental tendencies or peculiarities, you often know in advance what they will do under certain circumstances. But your foreknowledge due to insight into their personalities does not force them to so act, does it? They still act of their own free will, unmaneuvered and uncoerced by your foreknowledge, do they not? You may know how the quarreling nations of East and West will react under certain conditions, but because of that you would not think it just for you to be blamed for the squabbles, would you?

17. Why is it illogical to blame God for what he reads in a human mind?

¹⁷ So why blame God for what his foreknowledge reveals to him? He knows what is in the human mind, how it works, and is aware of its bent toward good or evil. But just that he can read what is in a man’s mind and see the way it will go does not make him responsible for what is in that mind, any more than we are responsible for what we may read in a book. It is the one who wrote the book that is responsible for its contents, and it is likewise the individual that harbors improper thoughts that is responsible for them. The thought is not put there by God, any more than we put the printed thought in the book we read. And just as we can either read or refrain from reading the book, so Jehovah can either look into or refrain from looking into our mind, can either foresee the course our mind will direct us into or withhold such knowledge from himself. In any event, we are created free moral agents and use that freedom as we choose.

ADAM MADE “VERY GOOD”

18. Why did Jehovah make man, and what illustration shows this purpose could be realized more so if man was a free moral agent?

¹⁸ Some, still stubbornly seeking to shift blame to God, criticize him for making man with free moral agency, saying if he had not done so man could never have gone wrong. Their reasoning is very shallow. Jehovah created man for His pleasure, and faithful men do give pleasure to God. (Ps. 35:27; 147:11; 149:4; Rev. 4:11) And it is the faculty of free will in man that greatly contributes to Jehovah’s pleasure. This is illustrated in man’s affairs, who was given dominion over the earth as God holds it over the universe. Man can make a mechanical dog, wind it up, and watch it hop around, knowing exactly what it will do. It is void of will, restricted by mechanical design. It may entertain for a time, but is not nearly as enjoyable as a live dog. The live dog has a certain measure of choice, and when we exercise dominion over it and train it we derive pleasure from it. The dog may be trained to do tricks, or render valuable service, such as that performed by a sheep dog. We are pleased because the dog does not obey us just because it has to, can do no differently. It gives us pleasure when it obeys us out of free choice, thus showing attachment to us. But if it rebels against our training, such as sheep dogs sometimes do by turning killer, we have no pleasure in it and are forced to destroy it because it misused its power of choice.

19. (a) So why was man given free moral agency, and how was he safeguarded? (b) How does God’s creating for his pleasure rule out Calvinist predestination?

¹⁹ In the same way man’s proper use of free will brings pleasure to God. Jehovah had many creations without free will, such as the stars and planets, which mechanically obey his laws of motion and stay in their assigned orbits; and even lower animals, and especially insects, are rather mechanical in action, since they are governed largely by instinct instead of reason. Man was to be something different, something higher, something suitable to put over the rest of earthly creation to exercise proper dominion over it, as a faithful servant of Jehovah. To make him “very good” for such an assignment Jehovah made man in God’s image, with qualities of justice, love, wisdom and power. (Gen. 1:26-31) A mechanical man, which is what one without free will would amount to, might have power, but would lack the other divine attributes. Justice implies the ability to choose between right and wrong. Wisdom involves among other things the intelligence needed to make the right choice. Love is shown by obedience to the commands of the Creator, and must be freely and cheerfully given to be genuine and a pleasure to the recipient. (1 John 5:3) God gave man these qualities, and the instructions for their proper use, and even added a conscience to guide when doubts as to right or wrong arose. (Rom. 2:12-16) But if the man rebels he is destroyed, just as is the sheep dog that turns killer. Yes, Jehovah could have made a robot instead of a man, but it would have given him no more pleasure than a mechanical dog gives us. So just as we prefer live dogs over mechanical ones, so Jehovah wanted live men with free moral agency instead of mechanical men. And, incidentally, since Jehovah created all things, including men, for his pleasure; and since he takes no pleasure in the death of men, he would hardly have predestinated many to die before he made them. Such creations would have brought him no pleasure, and would be a violation of his expressed principle of creating only for his pleasure.—Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11.

20. Despite some chronic complainers, what shows man would not wish to be other than a creature of free will?

²⁰ Those who complain about being made with free will would not have it otherwise. They do not want to be a machine, or even a living insect guided only by instinct, responding in a mechanical way to environment, devoid of intelligence, unable to make decisions or cope with unanticipated changes in conditions. As men they would not welcome partial removal of their free will, such as happens when men go to prison, having little say as to where they go, what they do, how they live, and so forth. Even persons of Satan’s world are hemmed in and their free will is circumscribed to an extent. They are enslaved by a rotten system, their minds shaped by demonistic propaganda, spiritually blinded by false religions, physically bound down to an office desk or factory assembly line, with noses kept to irksome grindstones to meet the obligations of time payments and other accumulated responsibilities under a system that regiments humanity to facilitate the exploitation thereof. Men fight and die for freedom. They want freedom of worship now, but some object because God gave it to Adam and Eve. That pair misused their freedom; so some say they should never have had it. Many men misuse freedom of worship today; is that reason to deny it to all?

21. For what should we be thankful, and busily do what?

²¹ We are free moral agents, thank Jehovah for that. We are not motorcars at whose wheel God sits and steers in the right or wrong way, guiding us beyond our power to control. He does not run us by some celestial remote-control system as men can drive cars or sail ships or fly planes by remote control. We are not predestinated to go this way or that, like puppets with strings attached and which God sits around and pulls to suit his whim. He made us men, not puppets, not machines. Instead of fretting over it, quibbling with God about it, we should busy ourselves in using it rightly, in harmony with divine requirements, and thereby assure ourselves of everlasting life.

22. What do some critics say, but what illustration shows them wrong?

²² When Jehovah pronounced his earthly creation, including man, “very good” it meant perfect: “His work is perfect.” (Deut. 32:4) Yet some say, If Adam and Eve had been perfect they would not have wrongly used their freedom of will and choice. But not necessarily so. A machine may be well designed, of flawless materials, of excellent workmanship, and accompanied by clear instructions as to the kind of fuel that will suitably run it, and warnings against using inferior fuels. Now, if the wrong fuel is deliberately used in defiance of the manufacturer’s careful instructions and the machine is fouled up and ruined, can the maker be blamed for producing an inferior machine? Not rightly so. It was the same with Adam and Eve. Their minds were perfect. Their bodies were perfect. Their provided food for mind and body was perfect. They were clearly and perfectly instructed as to what fuel to take in and what to reject. Then Satan through the serpent suggested a change in fuel, saying it would give them more power, give them a lift, make them like gods. So Eve took in the wrong fuel and got fouled up. She gave some to Adam and he was fouled up. Both were beyond repair; they were deliberate in their disobedience to instructions. Of them it is true: “God made mankind right, but they have sought out many villainies!” —Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:1-6; Eccl. 7:29, Fenton.

23. What was the test in Eden to measure or demonstrate?

²³ If Adam and Eve could not have used their free moral agency wrongly, it would not have been really free. God put them to a simple test to see how they would use it, to determine their holiness. It was a question of holiness, not of physical perfection. God knew they were perfect, and if that meant inability to fall away he would never have posed the test, knowing that due to their perfection they could not fail. The covering cherub was perfect until iniquity was found in him. (Ezek. 28:15) His perfection did not prevent his fall. His lack of holiness brought on his fall. Today some men choose to do right and serve God in holiness, but that does not make them perfect. Conversely, Adam and Eve chose to do wrong and be unholy, but that did not mean they were imperfect to begin with. It just means men are free moral agents, able to choose for themselves, and their right use of this ability is not a matter of perfection but of holiness. So the test in Eden was not to measure perfection or imperfection, but was to demonstrate holiness or unholiness.

24. How must Jehovah’s people now demonstrate holiness?

²⁴ In these closing days of wickedness Jehovah’s people must demonstrate holiness. They must not foul their minds with the filthy mental food on the propaganda tables of this old world, but must feed on the feast of fat things Jehovah provides. (Isa. 25:6; 28:8) Minds must be cleansed and made over, mental circuits formed by old-world thinking and acting faded out and new ones put in according to new-world specifications. By privately studying regularly, by attending all meetings regularly, and by engaging in all features of the preaching work regularly mental circuits are deepened and such good activities become habitual, not at all the struggle they are when the mental circuits are weak and faint because used only occasionally. For ourselves and for others, make them strong!—1 Tim. 4:16.

25. What are the varying effects of the message when preached in the territories, and why is clay a fitting symbol for people?

²⁵ The others for whose sake we must diligently preach are those out in the territories. When the message reaches them, how will they react? Will their mind, like pliable clay, be impressed with the truth, allow itself to be reshaped by it, brought into conformity with righteous Bible principles, be molded into ways of holiness to Jehovah? Or will the message come up against a mind that resists it, hardens against it, opposes it, ridicules and scoffs at it in a vain display of worldly superiority? Clay is a good symbol, for to shape into fine vessels it must be the right kind of clay, ground fine with no coarseness or hard lumps remaining, saturated with water, easily molded, able to hold its form and not sag out of shape, and not crack when burnt in the kiln. Similarly, persons must be of the right kind of soil, not rough or coarse in conduct nor with hard or stubborn streaks in them, but be saturated with the water of truth, fine-textured, smooth, pliable, meek, easily shaped to allow for thorough remodeling after the image of Christ, and then never drift back or collapse to the former shape or crack under the fiery tests of persecution sure to come. (Matt. 13:23; Heb. 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:21; 4:12) Jehovah, through his Word declared by his witnesses, will mold both vessels of wrath and vessels for glory. When a witness tells one householder there is no eternal torment the person may respond, “You make me so happy!” The next householder may cry, “You make me so mad!” It is the message that really makes them react, one so differently from the other. It is the message that makes the witnesses a sweet odor to one and a foul odor to the other, that molds one as a vessel of wrath and the other as a vessel of mercy.—2 Cor. 2:14-16, NW.

26. Of what may we be sure, and what question faces each individual?

²⁶ Of this all may be sure. We will allow God to either reshape us or make us shapeless. We will become vessels of mercy and conform to the molding influences of his Word, or we will harden as vessels of wrath and be reduced to formless rubble by his King’s iron rod. (Ps. 2:6-9) The question before each individual is, Do we choose to remain a vessel of wrath, or to reform as a vessel of mercy? We are free moral agents empowered to answer as we choose, unhindered by predestination, uncoerced by foreknowledge.

[Footnotes]

Questions From Readers

● What is the correct understanding of Exodus 4:24-26? Also, Exodus 4:20 reads as though Moses had returned to Egypt, but the next verse speaks of that return as still future. Why?—J. K., Japan.

At Exodus 4:20 it states: “Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt.” Ex 4 Verse 21 continues: “And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt”; which contradicts the thought that he had already returned. The difficulty is in the translating of Ex 4 verse 20. It reads as though the return was complete, whereas actually the Hebrew verb form indicates the return was under way but not completed. Other translations allow for this view. “Moses taketh his wife, and his sons, and causeth them to ride on the ass, and turneth back to the land of Egypt.” (Yg) “So Moses took his wife and sons, and mounted them on an ass, to return to the land of Egypt.” (AT) Hence it is perfectly logical for Ex 4 verse 21 to speak of the return as future, since it was not accomplished as yet.

Exodus 4:24-26 (AS) recounts an incident taking place during this return journey: “And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone. Then she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.” It seems that Moses had been delinquent in some respect. For one thing, he had not circumcised his son, and thus had failed to live up to God’s covenant of circumcision made with his forefather Abraham. (Gen. 17:9-14) Jehovah, through his representative angel, met Moses along the way and was going to execute the uncircumcised child. Moses’ wife, Zipporah, realized what was necessary to right matters. She took a sharp stone, a customary instrument in those days, and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it, not at the feet of Moses, but at the feet of the angel representing Jehovah. Meeting this requirement appeased the anger of Jehovah and the child was spared.

Then Zipporah said to Jehovah, through the representative angel, “Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.” By her compliance with the requirements of the covenant of circumcision, Zipporah acknowledged and entered a covenant relationship with Jehovah, and Jehovah became as a husband to her and she as a wife to him. That such a covenant relationship with Jehovah can make him as a husband married to the other party of the covenant is shown by the Law covenant made with Israel. Because of this covenant Jehovah says concerning the Israelites: “I was an husband unto