“He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope.” – Lamentations 3:29
When the LORD commanded Moses to go to Egypt and deliver the Israelites, Moses resisted his commission by God. The Lord did not intend to send anyone with Moses; He chose Moses alone. Then Moses gave three objections to the commission of God (Ex. 4:1, 10, 13), until finally, “the anger of the LORD was kindled” (Ex. 4:14). Moses would have been sufficient to speak, though he said “I am not eloquent,” for the Lord said, “Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Ex. 4:10, 12). When Moses persisted to resist the will/counsel of God (God in the ways of man), God repented of this genuine intention. God’s righteous anger against Moses’ resistance shows the sincerity of God’s will/counsel to send Moses alone. A will/counsel/intent that can be resisted is a desire that is after the ways of man, but since this is the Lord’s will being resisted, it is therefore called God in the ways of man. After the Lord’s repentance, He said to Moses: “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do” (Ex. 4:14-15). This entire scenario was chronicled without the will/intent/counsel of God in the ways of God accounted of. Nevertheless, God in the ways of God (His will/counsel/intent/command) cannot be resisted, changed, refused, or repented of.
The final blow which liberated the Israelites from Egyptian bondage was “by strength of hand” from the Lord (Ex. 13:16). “The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast,” thus the Israelites were commanded to “sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males” (Ex. 13:15). The Lord said, “Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both man and of beast: it is Mine” (Ex. 13:2). Long after this was commanded and the Israelites made their way to Sinai, sin arose, wrath was kindled, and rebellion was punished, but in the process of events the Lord repented of His former decision about the firstborn of Israel. He changed His mind on what He was claiming for Himself! He said, “And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be Mine” (Num. 3:12). Question: If God can change His mind on a purpose like this, could He then change His mind on a purpose of salvation? God in the ways of God counseled, willed, and desired to have the Levites as His possession, thus the genuine will (God in the ways of man) to take the firstborn of the matrix was changed. God’s will (God in the ways of God) was made manifest through circumstances that were predestined to change until God’s final decision remained.
In these two examples, it is clear that certain circumstances arose that changed God’s will. The Sovereign will of God was determining the opposite of what was originally the will of God, thus both wills were the antithesis of the other. Logically, in the capabilities and limitations possible within the willing/thinking faculties of a man, both of these wills could not genuinely exist at the same time, therefore (logically) we would think one of the wills is not a genuine desire that God had – kind of an act, maybe. This is not the case with God even though, logically, He cannot be understood (nor can this twofold will be experienced within man’s capacity), we can understand that He has revealed Himself through a condescension – in terms that the lens of our limited capacity & understanding can see – God in the ways of man. Overall, we must understand that we can’t understand! We must be at peace with the incomprehensible greatness of God which makes Him unknowable, and then we can be thankful for the condescension of God which reveals Him in ways which are like ours so that we might understand Him. We must reconcile ourselves with a biblical premise (contrary to mainstream, modern scholarship) – that all theological systems must be biblically, not logically consistent.
The final blow which liberated the Israelites from Egyptian bondage was “by strength of hand” from the Lord (Ex. 13:16). “The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast,” thus the Israelites were commanded to “sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males” (Ex. 13:15). The Lord said, “Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both man and of beast: it is Mine” (Ex. 13:2). Long after this was commanded and the Israelites made their way to Sinai, sin arose, wrath was kindled, and rebellion was punished, but in the process of events the Lord repented of His former decision about the firstborn of Israel. He changed His mind on what He was claiming for Himself! He said, “And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be Mine” (Num. 3:12). Question: If God can change His mind on a purpose like this, could He then change His mind on a purpose of salvation? God in the ways of God counseled, willed, and desired to have the Levites as His possession, thus the genuine will (God in the ways of man) to take the firstborn of the matrix was changed. God’s will (God in the ways of God) was made manifest through circumstances that were predestined to change until God’s final decision remained.
In these two examples, it is clear that certain circumstances arose that changed God’s will. The Sovereign will of God was determining the opposite of what was originally the will of God, thus both wills were the antithesis of the other. Logically, in the capabilities and limitations possible within the willing/thinking faculties of a man, both of these wills could not genuinely exist at the same time, therefore (logically) we would think one of the wills is not a genuine desire that God had – kind of an act, maybe. This is not the case with God even though, logically, He cannot be understood (nor can this twofold will be experienced within man’s capacity), we can understand that He has revealed Himself through a condescension – in terms that the lens of our limited capacity & understanding can see – God in the ways of man. Overall, we must understand that we can’t understand! We must be at peace with the incomprehensible greatness of God which makes Him unknowable, and then we can be thankful for the condescension of God which reveals Him in ways which are like ours so that we might understand Him. We must reconcile ourselves with a biblical premise (contrary to mainstream, modern scholarship) – that all theological systems must be biblically, not logically consistent.
