Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king laid HANDS on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them.
Acts 12:7 And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter's side and woke him up, saying, "Get up quickly." And his chains fell off his HANDS.
Acts 12:11 When Peter came to himself, he said, "Now I know for sure that the Lord has sent forth His angel and rescued me from the HAND of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting."
Acts 12:17 But motioning to them with his HAND to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, "Report these things to James and the brethren." Then he left and went to another place.
There is no way to fit one definition to each usage of the words. The context just will not allow it. Acts 12:1 contains an idiom which means “to arrest.” Acts 12:7 and Acts 12:17 have the meaning “a hand” [part of the anatomy], and Acts 12:11 it is again found in an idiom which means “authority of, bondage of.”
Jesus was ORDAINED and PREDESTINED before time; "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the kind attention of His will ...which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."
"And this is the will of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
"For this is the will of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son AND BELIEVES in Him may have eternal life..."
Was JESUS-ON-THE-CROSS what was predestined, and our adoption according to BELIEF --- or, was OUR ADIPTION PREDESTINED? Which?
I reply: While I would agree that the Cross of Christ was predestined, [Acts 2:23], THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN EPHESIANS 1. Let us take a look at the grammar and syntax:
Ephesians 1:5-6 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Ephesians 1:5-6:
Proorisas hemas eis huithesian dia Iesou Christou eis auton kata ten eudokian tou thelematos autou, 6. Eis epainon edoxes tes charitos autou es exaritosen hemas en to egapemeno.
First we have the word Proorisas in the 2 person active Aorist. Hence we have “he predestined” [past tense]. Who did he predestine? The answer is what is in the accusative:
Hemas. BUT THIS IS NOT “JESUS.” This is the plural form of you [us]. So it is US [the believers] who are predestined! Then he uses the phrase eis huithesian literally [unto our adoption as sons].
Louw and Nida write that huithesian means:
to formally and legally declare that someone who is not one's own child is henceforth to be treated and cared for as one's own child, INCLUDING THE COMPLETE RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE - 'to adopt, adoption.'
They say this passage means that:
'(God) had already decided from the beginning that through Jesus Christ he would adopt us to be his children' Eph 1.5.
Likewise, Friberg gives huithesian this meaning:
adoption; used in the NT as a legal technical term but in a metaphorical sense; (1) of God's acceptance of the nation of Israel as his chosen people (RO 9.4); (2) of the sonship status bestowed on those who believe in Christ (GA 4.5); (3) of the status given in the resurrected state (RO .23)
Also, since we have “according to the kind intention of his will” [kata ten eudokian tou thelematos autou,] we can pretty much assume that the function of the eis used here is an eis of result [“Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” p. 369]. This is due to the fact that this would create a purpose-result clause (which is common in the NT) [cf. Romans 1:20]. Hence, the semantic force of this verse is:
He predestined us to [resulting in the] adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to [in accordance with (kata)] the kind intention of His will,
Now let us continue by taking a look at the next verse. It begins with “Eis epainon.” Again, the context has not changed “and we are in the same sentence.” Hence, it is safe to assume that this is the same eis used in the previous verse [eis of result]. Again the semantic force of this is “to [resulting in] the praise of the glory of His grace.” Next, is the key verse:
which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Now, freely bestowed is ONE WORD. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates notes that this word means [in the context of Ephesians 1]:
The only other use of Ephesians 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e. objects of grace. (see huiothesia [5206], adoption, occurring in Ephesians 1:5) In charitoo there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting the soul SPECIAL FAVOR in distinction to charizomai (5483), to give grace, to remit, forgive.
Next, if you take that translation, then I must note that “freely” is an adverb. Hence, it modifies “bestowed,” and means that the way it was given to us is FREELY [by God’s free will].
Now, for the two verses you quoted:
"And this is the will of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
I think this is a misquotation. I believe what you wanted is John 6:29:
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
If this is not the verse you wanted, please tell me the citation, and which version it is from because I have looked it up in several and cannot find it.
Hence, it is the WORK of God that we believe in the one he has sent. Hence, God does not want everyone there to believe in him. In fact, this verse is contradicted by [well many passages, including this one] this passage:
John 12:39-40 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."
As to the next passage:
"For this is the will of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son AND BELIEVES in Him may have eternal life..."
First, I must note that you are reading universality into EVERYONE. Why do you not consult the Greek? The Greek to this passage runs as such:
Hina ho pas theoron ton huion kai pisteuon eis auton
Literally, “so that every beholding one of the son and believing one in him.” Nothing in this passage states that believing is an action that originates in us, and that we do by exercising our “free will.”
Also, why don’t we follow this to it’s logical conclusion. If God predestines by his will people to eternal life, according to Ephesians 1, and every believing one will have eternal life, it then follows that every and only predestined people BELIEVE.
As for Romans 9, I am sure you have written much about it, since it is so clear in asserting the absolute freedom of God. With regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, you have neglected on small little detail. First, we need to take a good look at Exodus 8:32.
Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart THIS TIME ALSO, and he did not let the people go.
To find the nature of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in this verse, we must go to the last time Moses writes of him hardening his heart:
Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, AS THE LORD HAD SAID.
Let me ask you something. When did the Lord EVER say that Pharaoh would harden his own heart? The only time we see mention of the LORD saying anything about Pharaoh’s heart is in Exodus 4:21:
Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART so that he will not let the people go.
Furthermore, this is not the only place this occurs:
Exodus 9:34-35 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35 Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses.
Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Also, why do you assume that both could not have done it. This is not alien to scripture:
Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.
Who meant it? God or Joseph’s brothers?
2 Samuel 24:1 Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
1 Chronicles 21:1-2 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan, and bring me word that I may know their number."
Exodus 5:22 Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, "O Lord, why have YOU [according to the text, it was Pharaoh] brought harm to this people? Why did You ever send me?
Jeremiah 51:20-26 He says, "You are My war-club, My weapon of war; And with you I shatter nations, And with you I destroy kingdoms. 21 "And with you I shatter the horse and his rider, 22 And with you I shatter the chariot and its rider, And with you I shatter man and woman, And with you I shatter old man and youth, And with you I shatter young man and virgin, 23 And with you I shatter the shepherd and his flock, And with you I shatter the farmer and his team, And with you I shatter governors and prefects. 24 "But I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea for all their evil that they have done in Zion before your eyes," declares the LORD. 25 "Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain, Who destroys the whole earth," declares the LORD, "And I will stretch out My hand against you, And roll you down from the crags And I will make you a burnt out mountain. 26 "And they will not take from you even a stone for a corner Nor a stone for foundations, But you will be desolate forever," declares the LORD.
Hence, if you take your interpretation, you are stuck trying to explain why the LORD never said Pharaoh would harden his heart.
Furthermore, I am also NOT surprised that you decided to take the two vessels for “common use” and for “honorable” use to both be saved. You may not be aware of this, but “The Justification of God” is John Piper’s doctoral dissertation. Hence, I am sure that EVERY argument you could conceivably come up with against that passage is probably more than likely in there. Here is his response to this argument: