Latest / Reformed Thinking / ὁρίζω (Horizō): The God Who Determines Times and Boundaries

Transcript

ὁρίζω (Horizō): The God Who Determines Times and Boundaries · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to reformed thinking. And welcome to the deep dive.
• 0:03
  Our whole purpose here is to take the source material, all
• 0:06
  the lexical definitions, the commentary, the scriptural
• 0:09
  context you send our way, and really just pull out the central
• 0:12
  threads we. Want to give you a clear
• 0:14
  structure, a kind of road map for the knowledge.
• 0:16
  Exactly. And today we're doing a very,
• 0:20
  very focused deep dive. We're looking at just one
• 0:23
  specific but theologically massive Greek verb.
• 0:27
  That verb is udus. Would you pronounce Hariza?
• 0:31
  Right. And, you know, on the surface it
• 0:33
  seems pretty straightforward. It just means to set a boundary.
• 0:36
  But as our sources show, this word becomes just absolutely
• 0:40
  central for expressing divine sovereignty.
• 0:43
  We've got a whole stack of material here.
• 0:45
  We're looking at its classical uses, how it shows up in the
• 0:48
  Septuagint, and then it's really critical appearances in the New
• 0:51
  Testament. Mostly in Luke, Acts and Romans.
• 0:53
  That's where it really does the heavy lifting.
• 0:55
  So the goal is to track that whole shift in meaning.
• 0:58
  How does a simple word for, you know, setting a physical
• 1:01
  boundary? A line in the sand.
• 1:02
  A line in the sand? Exactly how does that become the
• 1:05
  word you use to talk about God's eternal plan, the appointed
• 1:09
  times of history, and maybe most critically, the very identity of
• 1:13
  Jesus Christ? It connects all three
• 1:15
  boundaries, definitions, and determination into one single
• 1:20
  sovereign concept. So let's start at the beginning,
• 1:23
  the most concrete idea. OK, so let's unpack this.
• 1:26
  We're starting with the literal meaning, with physical limits,
• 1:29
  with the geography of the ancient world.
• 1:31
  Yes, the verb hariz comes from the known olas horos, and that
• 1:36
  just means boundary landmark, a limit.
• 1:38
  Simple enough. Very simple.
• 1:40
  The basic action of the verb is to separate two things, and in
• 1:44
  doing so, establish A boundary to limit something.
• 1:47
  And it's amazing when you realize our English word horizon
• 1:50
  comes directly from this. It does.
• 1:51
  The horizon is the ultimate visual horos, isn't it?
• 1:54
  It's the defined limit of what we can see, where the Earth
• 1:58
  seems to meet the sky. It's a fixed line.
• 2:01
  That connection is perfect, actually, because it anchors the
• 2:03
  idea in something concrete, something you can see and
• 2:06
  understand. And our sources point out that
• 2:08
  while that specific singular noun horos doesn't actually
• 2:13
  appear in the New Testament, the plural form to Hoya does, and it
• 2:17
  means territory or limits. So even if the singular word for
• 2:21
  boundary isn't there, the idea of setting boundaries of
• 2:25
  delimitation is absolutely present.
• 2:27
  And we can see this literal geographical meaning way, way
• 2:31
  back, long before the New Testament.
• 2:32
  Well. Yes, the sources cite early
• 2:34
  writers like Aeschylus and the historian Herodotus.
• 2:37
  And that Herodotus example is a great illustration.
• 2:40
  It's perfect. He uses Herinos to describe how
• 2:43
  the Nile River, quite literally Ozzy it separates it bounds Asia
• 2:48
  from Libya. So in that context, the word is
• 2:51
  just. It's about map making.
• 2:52
  It's purely cartographic. It's describing a fixed
• 2:55
  geographical feature that draws a line between two places.
• 2:58
  That's it. But even then, there's an
• 2:59
  element of power, isn't there? Yeah, In the ancient world,
• 3:02
  fixing a boundary wasn't just descriptive.
• 3:04
  No, not at all. It was an act of power, an act
• 3:07
  of definition. It was political, it was
• 3:09
  economic. If you know the fixed boundary,
• 3:12
  you know where your land ends and your enemy's land begins.
• 3:15
  Precisely. And that concept, that idea of
• 3:18
  an authoritative boundary, carries directly into the Greek
• 3:21
  Old Testament, the Septuagint, the LXX, the LXX, right.
• 3:25
  And here the verb is used constantly for fixing the
• 3:27
  physical borders of Israel during the occupation of the
• 3:30
  Promised Land. So.
• 3:31
  This is where the simple geographical idea starts to pick
• 3:34
  up the illogical weight. Yeah, because God isn't just a
• 3:36
  geographer. He's a covenantal geographer.
• 3:39
  Yes, absolutely. When the text describes the land
• 3:41
  boundaries, horizis means that this boundary has been fixed,
• 3:45
  it's been limited, and it's been declared by God's own authority.
• 3:49
  In places like numbers 34 right, detailing the western boundary.
• 3:52
  Numbers 34.6 yes, and also Joshua 15 and 18 laying out the
• 3:58
  borders for the individual tribes.
• 4:00
  And the sources confirm that in these Old Testament passages,
• 4:02
  hariz is the word they often choose to translate the Hebrew
• 4:05
  word gibble. Javul, yes, which means boundary
• 4:09
  or territory. But the point here isn't just
• 4:12
  that a line exists on a map. No, the point is the act of
• 4:16
  establishing it, the act of setting apart a land for people
• 4:20
  of covenantally drawing a line around that space, that is a
• 4:25
  deliberate sovereign action from God.
• 4:28
  He doesn't suggest limits, He sets them.
• 4:30
  And that really does set the stage for the next move the word
• 4:33
  makes. It's a very small step if.
• 4:35
  You could set a fixed boundary in physical space.
• 4:38
  You can set a fixed boundary around an idea.
• 4:41
  Exactly right. The usage just naturally moves
• 4:43
  from the physical world to the intellectual world.
• 4:46
  This second sense means to define concepts, to set limits
• 4:50
  to an idea, or to explain it. So when you set a boundary
• 4:53
  around a concept, you're saying what it is.
• 4:55
  And what it isn't? And what isn't?
• 4:57
  You're defining its extent. You're saying this idea goes
• 4:59
  this far and no further. To define something is to limit
• 5:03
  it. Yes, and this becomes crucial
• 5:04
  for the early church. You have to remember they were
• 5:06
  constantly defining themselves against other philosophies,
• 5:09
  against what they considered heresies.
• 5:10
  So they needed language of definition.
• 5:12
  They needed a language of authoritative fixed definition,
• 5:15
  and we find this amazing example of this in an early Christian
• 5:19
  text that our source material brings up it.
• 5:20
  Uses Herizu to talk about a theological unity.
• 5:24
  The phrase is tutto kata, so Ato shy sing.
• 5:29
  Which translates to He defined the water and the cross
• 5:32
  together. OK, let's stop there.
• 5:34
  Why is that specific example so important?
• 5:37
  I mean couldn't the author have just said he explained or he
• 5:40
  connected them? Why use Herizu?
• 5:44
  Because using heriza implies finality.
• 5:46
  It implies authority. Think about the battles the
• 5:48
  early church was fighting. You had ideas like dosatism
• 5:51
  which tried to separate the spiritual Christ from the real
• 5:55
  physical suffering on the cross. Right.
• 5:57
  Or Gnosticism, which might diminish the physical act of
• 5:59
  baptism. Precisely so.
• 6:01
  By saying he defined them together, the author is setting
• 6:04
  a fixed doctrinal boundary. He's drawing a line and saying
• 6:07
  that any proper understanding of the faith must hold these two
• 6:10
  things, baptism and the cross, in unity.
• 6:13
  So to cross that boundary is to misunderstand the faith.
• 6:15
  It's to fall into error. It shows that the concept of
• 6:18
  setting a limit has now become the language of theological
• 6:21
  authority. It's about building doctrinal
• 6:23
  guardrails. A definition at its core is a
• 6:26
  form of fixed intellectual limitation.
• 6:29
  And if that limit is set by the ultimate authority, by God
• 6:32
  himself, then that boundary, that definition, is unalterable.
• 6:37
  It's fixed and this is the whole foundation We need to grasp what
• 6:41
  happens next when the Word is used to talk about divine
• 6:43
  decree. OK, that lays the groundwork
• 6:45
  perfectly. If Ariza can draw a fixed line
• 6:48
  on a map, and it can draw a fixed line around a doctrine,
• 6:52
  the next step is applying that same fixed line to the flow of
• 6:55
  time itself to history. Yes, that's the transition.
• 6:58
  We're now at the second major use of Hiriza.
• 7:01
  It now means to make a determination about something,
• 7:03
  to determine to a point, to fix, to set.
• 7:06
  The limitation isn't just spatial anymore, it's temporal.
• 7:08
  The boundary is now being applied to time and again.
• 7:11
  This usage was already around before the New Testament writers
• 7:14
  pick it up. Oh yes, the sources bring up the
• 7:17
  order Demosthenes where he says the law fixed the time Omas Tund
• 7:22
  or Sane. And the Jewish historian
• 7:25
  Josephus talks about the appointed time.
• 7:28
  S10. Asman, Kai.
• 7:30
  So in those cases the authority is the law, or maybe a king.
• 7:35
  The time is set by a human power.
• 7:37
  Right. It's not left to chance.
• 7:39
  It's delimited by some determining authority.
• 7:41
  But when the New Testament authors use this temporal
• 7:44
  meaning, they almost always point it back to the ultimate
• 7:47
  authority. Back to God's action.
• 7:49
  Exclusively. The clearest example is probably
• 7:51
  Hebrews 4.7. The author is talking about the
• 7:54
  offer of the Sabbath rest. And he says that God.
• 7:58
  Got PFN Orawara? God sets or fixes a certain day.
• 8:02
  He's arguing that the offer of rest isn't just something in the
• 8:05
  past. God is actively drawing a
• 8:07
  boundary around a new day, a new opportunity, defining when you
• 8:11
  can enter that rest. But the one verse that seems to
• 8:13
  pull the spatial and the temporal together into one huge
• 8:16
  statement about God's sovereignty is Acts 17.26.
• 8:20
  Yes, Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. To the Athenians, this verse is
• 8:24
  just critical. It really is.
• 8:26
  Paul declares that God declares that God otha sustamis kyrus,
• 8:32
  God fixed appointed times, and also tosa sites the limits or
• 8:37
  the boundaries of human habitation.
• 8:40
  Let's just sit with that for a second.
• 8:41
  That's an incredible statement about God's Providence.
• 8:43
  It is. He didn't just, you know, create
• 8:46
  the world and then step back to watch it unfold.
• 8:48
  Paul is saying he fixed the schedule of human history, the
• 8:52
  appointed seasons and times, the Kairos and plus.
• 8:56
  He also fixed the physical boundaries, though it is us of
• 8:59
  where every person and every nation would live.
• 9:01
  He established the entire framework, the whole stage for
• 9:05
  human civilization. Think about what that implies.
• 9:07
  Every national border, every historical age, the rise and
• 9:10
  fall of every single empire, it all happens within parameters
• 9:14
  that God has her Razid. He set the boundaries for when
• 9:17
  and for where. And the very next verse in Acts
• 9:19
  verse 27, tells us why he did this.
• 9:22
  It gives the purpose. That they should seek God, if
• 9:24
  perhaps they might grope for him and find Him.
• 9:27
  Exactly. So the limits aren't arbitrary.
• 9:29
  The boundaries, the determined times, they are all established
• 9:32
  for the purpose of pushing humanity toward God.
• 9:36
  The very boundaries of our existence are designed to funnel
• 9:39
  us toward recognizing our dependence on Him.
• 9:42
  It makes both history and geography deeply theological.
• 9:45
  They're not chaotic forces. They are ordered tools.
• 9:48
  Tools of divine pedagogy, Yes, and our sources point out
• 9:52
  something interesting here that confirms this idea.
• 9:54
  There's a textual variant in some manuscripts for this verse.
• 9:58
  Instead of prostitabinous, some manuscripts have protabinous.
• 10:03
  The difference is subtle, but it means pre appointed or
• 10:06
  pre-ordered. So the early interpreters were
• 10:09
  already leaning into the idea of predetermination.
• 10:12
  Immediately they read this fixing of time as something that
• 10:15
  stemmed from God's prior eternal counsel.
• 10:18
  The act of fixing was understood to be an act of prefixing.
• 10:22
  OK, so if God can fix space and time, then fixing rules and
• 10:25
  decrees seems to follow pretty naturally.
• 10:27
  It's the same logic her easy comes to describe the
• 10:30
  authoritative action of establishing a rule that demands
• 10:33
  you follow it. And we see this in some of the
• 10:35
  early Christian writings. Our sources cite the Epistle to
• 10:38
  Diagnetus, for instance. Yes, it describes the laws as
• 10:42
  ODA Uzuminoy Numo, the established laws.
• 10:46
  You see, the act of making a law is literally setting a boundary
• 10:50
  around acceptable behavior. Limiting your actions.
• 10:53
  Yes, and it even extends to Church government.
• 10:56
  First, Clement talks about of Lespinos Toslatus Kanum, which
• 11:00
  is the established limits of 1's ministry.
• 11:03
  So even within the Church, your function, your role operates
• 11:07
  within a determined boundary, a Canon or Canon.
• 11:10
  It's the application of divine order to human activity.
• 11:13
  Now, before we get to the absolute heart of this, the big
• 11:16
  theological section, we have to look at the one exception, the
• 11:19
  one outlier in the New Testament.
• 11:21
  Acts 11.29. Right in this verse, it's not
• 11:24
  God doing the action. No, it's the disciples in
• 11:27
  Antioch. They hear about a coming famine
• 11:29
  and the text says they determined they decided to send
• 11:32
  aid to the believers in Judea. So this is a human decision.
• 11:36
  It's a definite plan, but it's made by human beings.
• 11:39
  It is. You could call it a human echo
• 11:41
  of a divine concept. It's people making a
• 11:44
  determination. But as our sources point out,
• 11:46
  the key thing is that this is the only one of the eight times
• 11:50
  Hareza's is used in the New Testament that isn't
• 11:53
  emphatically theological. So it's rarity actually
• 11:55
  highlights its main purpose. It really does.
• 11:58
  It shows the word can mean human decision, but the New Testament
• 12:02
  authors almost exclusively reserve it for the language of
• 12:05
  divine decree. OK, that brings us to the most
• 12:08
  significant transition. This is it.
• 12:10
  We're moving from fixed times and human decisions to the
• 12:14
  absolute center of the words, meaning God's ultimate decree
• 12:18
  and His foreknowledge. This is the heart of what the
• 12:21
  Reformed tradition understands as God's meticulous sovereignty.
• 12:24
  And this is where Hareza's becomes the linguistic bedrock
• 12:27
  for predestination. We're looking now at the passive
• 12:30
  use Tatusmanon. That which has been determined.
• 12:33
  That which has already been fixed by a prior action.
• 12:35
  Exactly. And the first key example is
• 12:37
  Luke 22.22. This is right before the
• 12:40
  crucifixion. Jesus says OK, Toyota Catusman.
• 12:45
  The Son of Man goes according to what has been determined or
• 12:49
  according to the divine decree. The implication there is just
• 12:53
  immense, especially in the context of Judas's betrayal in
• 12:56
  the cross itself. It means Christ's path, His
• 12:59
  suffering, his death. None of it was an accident.
• 13:02
  It wasn't a Plan B. It was bounded and structured by
• 13:06
  divine counsel from the beginning.
• 13:07
  The choice of that word inskmenon removes any hint of
• 13:11
  chance from the central event of all history.
• 13:14
  It didn't just happen. It didn't even just get
• 13:16
  foreseen. It happened in accordance with
• 13:18
  the decree. It was the prefixed plan.
• 13:21
  So if Luke 22 establishes the principle, then Acts 2.23 is
• 13:25
  where it gets spelled out in the strongest possible terms.
• 13:28
  This is Peter's sermon at Pentecost.
• 13:30
  He's speaking to the very people who are complicit in the
• 13:32
  crucifixion, and he says this about.
• 13:38
  Delivered up according to the determinate counsel and
• 13:41
  foreknowledge of God. That phrase is a theological
• 13:44
  engine. We have to break that down.
• 13:46
  The terms are coupled together so carefully you have Buber,
• 13:49
  which is counsel or plan. Then you have Procuse, which is
• 13:53
  foreknowledge, and both of them are being modified by this word.
• 13:57
  Who's me? Determinate or fixed?
• 14:00
  Why are all three needed there? That coupling is absolutely
• 14:04
  deliberate. It's building a complete picture
• 14:06
  of divine action. Let's take them 1 by 1.
• 14:08
  OK, start with Muta. Buli is God's settled will, His
• 14:12
  purpose. It's his internal eternal plan.
• 14:16
  This isn't just a wish or a passive desire.
• 14:18
  It's his active intention. OK.
• 14:21
  Then you add progos, a foreknowledge.
• 14:22
  And this is not just God looking down the corridors of time and
• 14:25
  seeing what will happen. In a context like this,
• 14:28
  especially paired with Bula and Hurriyajam, it implies a much
• 14:31
  more active relational knowledge, a knowledge that is
• 14:33
  tied to the determination itself.
• 14:36
  And then, ease me, the word we're focused on modifies both
• 14:39
  of them. It acts like a clamp on the
• 14:41
  whole phrase. It does.
• 14:42
  It tells you that this plan and this knowledge were fixed.
• 14:46
  They were bounded, they were determined beforehand.
• 14:49
  The whole structure is designed to communicate that God's
• 14:51
  involvement in the cross wasn't a reaction.
• 14:54
  It wasn't contingent on human choices, no.
• 14:57
  The cross happened because God himself fixed the boundaries of
• 15:00
  the event. He defined its limits, ensuring
• 15:03
  it happened exactly as He planned it.
• 15:05
  So Peter is telling the crowd, yes, you acted with wicked
• 15:08
  hands, but your evil actions only serve to accomplish what
• 15:13
  God had already set the boundaries for.
• 15:15
  That's it. Your human action was contained
• 15:17
  entirely within the fixed divine decree, and the source
• 15:20
  commentary we have is very clear on this.
• 15:22
  It says the reference is always to the predestination of the
• 15:25
  Christ event by God. It's defining his very mission.
• 15:28
  It's equating the appointment of Christ with who he is from
• 15:31
  eternity. In God's decree, He was fixed in
• 15:34
  this role before the foundation of the world.
• 15:36
  OK, this brings us to a really key theological insight that the
• 15:39
  source material highlights. It's a Latin phrase.
• 15:41
  God's verbum is ethic acts. Right.
• 15:44
  It means God's word is effective or efficacious.
• 15:48
  This speaks directly to the nature of Harris's See when a
• 15:51
  human being sets a boundary, say a politician declares a new
• 15:54
  border, they need armies, treaties, enforcement to make it
• 15:58
  real. Their word isn't enough on its
• 16:01
  own. Their definition is often just
• 16:02
  an aspiration, But when God uses Harris's, when God sets a
• 16:07
  boundary or defines a thing or decrees an action, the
• 16:10
  declaration itself contains the power to bring it into being.
• 16:14
  So his word accomplishes what it says.
• 16:16
  A divine declaration is the same thing as a divine appointment.
• 16:19
  His intention and his action are one.
• 16:21
  If he says something is fixed, it is by that very declaration.
• 16:25
  Done. So to be defined by God is in a
• 16:28
  very real sense to be established by God.
• 16:30
  Precisely, and This is why a simple word for boundary can be
• 16:33
  used for the most profound acts of God's will.
• 16:35
  It shows the decree he isn't just an idea in his mind, it's
• 16:38
  the ultimate fixed reality that governs everything.
• 16:41
  And this isn't some later interpretation, is it?
• 16:43
  The idea that Harizas is linked to eternal predetermination was
• 16:47
  there from very early on. We can see it in the manuscript
• 16:50
  tradition. The sources point out that in
• 16:53
  some ancient copies of Romans 1.4, the scribes actually
• 16:57
  substituted proresitas. Which means foreordained or
• 17:00
  predestined. Yes, they swapped it in for
• 17:03
  Uzestas and we saw the same kind of thing with Acts 17.26 with
• 17:07
  the variant Kratucka Moose. The early scribes were already
• 17:10
  making the connection themselves.
• 17:12
  They were for them the difference between setting a
• 17:15
  fixed limit parisus and setting that limit from eternity.
• 17:18
  Virturesus was almost non existent.
• 17:21
  The fixed limit was just assumed to originate in God's eternal
• 17:24
  decree. So that provides the whole
• 17:26
  theological framework. Are we that is he the action of
• 17:29
  God fixing reality. Now we have to see how this
• 17:32
  action applies directly to the person of Jesus Jesus Christ.
• 17:34
  Right, Section 4. This is where we look at the
• 17:37
  specifically Christological passages where this fixed
• 17:39
  boundary determines his status and his destiny.
• 17:42
  And there are three crucial passages.
• 17:44
  Three. Yes, and the first to focus on
• 17:46
  his function as the ultimate judge of all things.
• 17:49
  Acts 10.42 is very direct. This is Peter speaking at the
• 17:52
  House of Cornelius. He says Osteen Monstein uthem
• 17:55
  was UPT UE quitis dutan guidance.
• 18:00
  This one is the one designated by God as Judge of the living
• 18:03
  and the dead. So Jesus isn't just someone who
• 18:06
  might judge one day, He's the appointed judge.
• 18:09
  The designated judge and the Greek grammar there is so
• 18:12
  important. It uses the passive perfect
• 18:15
  participle osminos. This form describes a present
• 18:18
  state that is the result of a past completed action.
• 18:22
  Meaning his appointment as judge is a settled fact.
• 18:26
  It's a permanent status that resulted from God's determining
• 18:29
  action. Exactly.
• 18:30
  It's not a temporary job title, it's a finished divine boundary
• 18:35
  that has been placed around his function for all time.
• 18:37
  And this same idea is repeated in Acts 17, isn't it?
• 18:40
  It is in verse 31, right after Paul talks about God fixing the
• 18:44
  boundaries of nations. He says God will judge the world
• 18:46
  in a move through a man whom he has appointed.
• 18:49
  That's a powerful connection. The same guide who set the
• 18:52
  boundaries of all history will use a fixed and determined man,
• 18:56
  Jesus, to enact the final judgement over that history.
• 19:00
  The cosmic boundary setter determines the final boundaries
• 19:03
  of justice. In both of these passages, the
• 19:05
  act of horizons sets apart a specific person for an
• 19:09
  authoritative final function. His identity is defined by this
• 19:14
  determined role. But the most complex passage,
• 19:17
  the one that gets right to the heart of his very being, is
• 19:20
  Romans 1.4. Yes, this one is dense.
• 19:23
  Paul describes Jesus as being tui senso SUA suito adamin.
• 19:28
  Who has been declared or maybe instituted as the powerful Son
• 19:31
  of God? Right.
• 19:32
  And we have to slow down here because our source material
• 19:34
  points out a major scholarly debate over that word usentos.
• 19:39
  The debate is really about whether Hari's here means
• 19:41
  declared or appointed. That's the nub of it.
• 19:45
  Is it a declaration about Christ's eternally existing
• 19:48
  status, or is it an appointment to a new function that he
• 19:51
  receives at the resurrection? So to put it simply, does the
• 19:56
  resurrection make him the Son of God in power, or does it just
• 19:59
  prove that he already was the Son of God in power?
• 20:01
  That is the question, yes. Those who lean toward
• 20:04
  appointment see it as his installation into the messianic
• 20:06
  office. The resurrection is the moment
• 20:09
  he's given full divine authority.
• 20:11
  But others, especially in our tradition, argue strongly for
• 20:15
  declared. They do.
• 20:16
  They argue the verb is about an authoritative demonstration of a
• 20:19
  nature that he already possessed from all eternity.
• 20:23
  So how do we resolve this? Well, this is where we circle
• 20:26
  back to that idea of God's efficativeness Word.
• 20:29
  The source material offers a brilliant way to think about
• 20:31
  this. Since God's declaration is
• 20:33
  always effective, the practical difference between the two ideas
• 20:36
  gets a lot smaller. OK, explain that Whether God is
• 20:39
  declaring something about him or appointing him to a status, the
• 20:43
  end result is the same. God has actively and
• 20:45
  definitively established him as the powerful Son of God.
• 20:49
  He is fixed in this role. The resurrection then serves as
• 20:52
  the powerful, undeniable boundary marker that confirms
• 20:55
  that fixed status for all the world to see.
• 20:58
  So the resurrection isn't just evidence, it's the definitive,
• 21:02
  determined event that shows the finality of the Herzoot that at
• 21:06
  the boundary God had already placed on Christ's identity.
• 21:09
  That's a perfect way to put it, and there's one more subtle
• 21:12
  point the source material makes about the grammar here, the
• 21:14
  phrase into me in power. It clarifies that this phrase is
• 21:19
  not an adverb modifying rezoo, it's an attribute describing Leo
• 21:24
  Faye. OK.
• 21:25
  That's very technical. Can you break that down for us?
• 21:27
  It means the text is not saying he was powerfully declared, as
• 21:32
  if the declaration itself was done with a loud voice.
• 21:35
  Instead, it's saying he was declared to be the Son of God,
• 21:38
  who is characterized by power. The power is an attribute of his
• 21:41
  sonship. I see, so the jurizo in Romans
• 21:43
  1.4 fixes Jesus is the Son of God, and at the same time it
• 21:48
  fixes the very definition of that sonship as one that is
• 21:51
  defined by power, a power proven by the resurrection.
• 21:54
  Correct. The designation is
• 21:56
  comprehensive. It determines His function as
• 21:58
  Judge and His Person as the powerful Son, and it roots it
• 22:01
  all in the divine plan that came before time.
• 22:03
  So when you step back and look at all 8 uses in the New
• 22:06
  Testament, the pattern is unavoidable.
• 22:08
  It really is, With that single exception of the human decision
• 22:12
  in Acts 11:00, every single time the word horizis is used.
• 22:16
  It is theological and it is Christological.
• 22:18
  The language of setting limits becomes the chosen vocabulary
• 22:21
  for describing God's determination of everything
• 22:24
  about Jesus Christ. That brings us to the end of our
• 22:27
  deep dive into Horizis. It's incredible how one single
• 22:31
  verb can provide such a foundation for understanding the
• 22:34
  scope of God's sovereignty. It's a remarkable word.
• 22:37
  So let's quickly summarize the three main applications we've
• 22:39
  traced for you, the listener. We saw Horizis move through
• 22:42
  these stages. Right.
• 22:43
  First, it starts by defining reality.
• 22:46
  It sets physical or conceptual boundaries.
• 22:48
  That's the Nile River, or it's the doctrinal line drawn around
• 22:51
  the unity of the water in the cross.
• 22:53
  Then second, it becomes the language of fixing things,
• 22:56
  fixing times, laws, ordinances. This is God setting a specific
• 23:01
  day for rest, or, as we saw in Acts 17, setting the geographic
• 23:05
  and temporal limits for all of human history.
• 23:07
  And finally, it reaches its highest theological meaning,
• 23:10
  describing divine decreeing or appointing.
• 23:14
  This is the fixed, determinate counsel of God, the bulo and
• 23:17
  prognosis that governs all of salvation history and
• 23:21
  specifically fixes the identity of Jesus as the determined Judge
• 23:25
  and the powerful Son of God. So the key take away here,
• 23:29
  especially for those of us interested in Reformed doctrine,
• 23:31
  is that understanding this one word gives you direct insight
• 23:35
  into how the New Testament authors thought about God's
• 23:37
  meticulous Providence. Nothing happens by chance.
• 23:40
  Nothing. The betrayal, the crucifixion,
• 23:42
  the resurrection, the final judgement, it all happens Katya
• 23:45
  Esmeon, according to the fixed decree.
• 23:48
  The word itself is a quiet but firm statement that our world
• 23:51
  operates within defined divine parameters.
• 23:53
  The limits have been set. God is the one who actively
• 23:56
  defines reality, and his definition is effective.
• 23:59
  So we want to leave you with a final thought to think about,
• 24:02
  one that comes directly from that incredible passage, Acts
• 24:05
  17.26. If God has fixed the times and
• 24:09
  the boundaries of our lives for the specific purpose that we
• 24:12
  might seek Him, how does that idea of divine limits affect how
• 24:16
  you see your own daily life? If the very place you inhabit,
• 24:20
  the area you live in, the circumstances around you, if all
• 24:23
  of it is subject to a fixed intentional divine boundary
• 24:26
  marker, what does that say about your responsibility and purpose
• 24:29
  right now, right where you are within those fixed limits?
• 24:32
  That is something worth carrying with you.
• 24:33
  Thank you for joining us for the Deep Dive.
• 24:35
  Until next time.