 |
 | 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/26/2004 6:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | I have found Adam Clarke's masterful commentary on Pharoah's hardening to be quite helpful:
Verse 15. For now I will stretch out my hand
In the Hebrew the verbs are in the past tense, and not in the future, as our translation improperly expresses them, by which means a contradiction appears in the text: for neither Pharaoh nor his people were smitten by a pestilence, nor was he by any kind of mortality cut off from the earth. It is true the first-born were slain by a destroying angel, and Pharaoh himself was drowned in the Red Sea; but these judgments do not appear to be referred to in this place. If the words be translated, as they ought, in the subjunctive mood, or in the past instead of the future, this seeming contradiction to facts, as well as all ambiguity, will be avoided: For if now I HAD STRETCHED OUT ( shalachti, had set forth) my hand, and had smitten thee ( vaach otheca) and thy people with the pestilence, thou SHOULDST HAVE BEEN cut off ( ticcached) from the earth.
Verse 16. But truly, on this very account, have I caused thee to SUBSIST, ( heemadticha,) that I MIGHT cause thee to see my power, ( harotheca eth cochi,) and that my name MIGHT be declared throughout all the earth, (or, becol haarets, in all THIS LAND.) See Ainsworth and Houbigant.
Thus God gave this impious king to know that it was in consequence of his especial providence that both he and his people had not been already destroyed by means of the past plagues; but God had preserved him for this very purpose, that he might have a farther opportunity of manifesting that he, Jehovah, was the only true God for the full conviction both of the Hebrews and Egyptians, that the former might follow and the latter fear before him. Judicious critics of almost all creeds have agreed to translate the original as above, a translation which it not only can bear but requires, and which is in strict conformity to both the Septuagint and Targum. Neither the Hebrew heemadticha, I have caused thee to stand; nor the apostle's translation of it, Romans 9:17, åîçãåéñá óå, I have raised thee; nor that of the Septuagint, åíåêåí ôïõôïõäéåôçñçèçò, on this account art thou preserved, viz., in the past plagues; can countenance that most exceptionable meaning put on the words by certain commentators, viz., "That God ordained or appointed Pharaoh from all eternity, by certain means, to this end; that he made him to exist in time; that he raised him to the throne; promoted him to that high honour and dignity; that he preserved him, and did not cut him off as yet; that he strengthened and hardened his heart; irritated, provoked, and stirred him up against his people Israel, and suffered him to go all the lengths he did go in his obstinacy and rebellion; all which was done to show in him his power in destroying him in the Red Sea. The sum of which is, that this man was raised up by God in every sense for God to show his power in his destruction." So man speaks; thus GOD hath not spoken. See Henry on the place.
Verse 17. As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people
So it appears that at this time he might have submitted, and thus prevented his own destruction.
The SEVENTH plague-the HAIL.
(The above is public domain, and is available at the following link) :
http://studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ex&chapter=9&verse=16
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
wstaylor
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 11/1/2004 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Here's my question: Why was it even necessary for there to be a betrayer anyway? . . .
[II] I just read about this during my Bible reading last night. Jesus said, "Woe to the one who betrays the Son of Man. It would have been better for him never to have been born," . . .
[III] I mean what Judas did was no worse than Peter denying Jesus three times, right? So, if Judas had asked for forgiveness he would have been saved like the rest of the disciples.
[IV] What about a Christian who struggles with depression and in a moment of agony kills himself before climbing out of that misery again? . . .
Tigress,
I thought your questions above (Romanised for ease of response with out breaking up ,aside from truncation, your post) are especially interesting, to say nothing of the importance of the subject matter, and judging from the responses so far I wanted to provide some further information to help you resolve the issue.
I haven't posted at CV for some time, but a cage rattling by a certain active member here roused me to action. While looking for the post that called me forth by name I saw this thread and thought I'd stop here before proceeding to my original task.
I suppose I ought to introduce myself (I hate dropping in on folks like a certain las from Kansas) and so will make a passing nod in that direction.
[this became more than a passing nod, so feel free to skip over]
wstaylor = W. Scott Taylor, Board Member and Web Editor for Evangelical Education Ministries, Inc. (EEM for short). EEM has been in existence for roughly thirty years and was founded by businessmen and clergy to provide educational material on theology that was preached and taught in the previous (i.e. circa 1850) century in and during what Church Historians refer to as the "Second Great Awakening" in America. Due to various forms of theological hegemony the views spoken for above have not had a fair hearing. Enter EEM, which was able to leverage decades of research of that era into the market place of ideas. If the truth be told, Youth With A Mission owes it's present existence to members of Bible Research Inc., Men For Missions Inc., and EEM, Inc. We're are talking about the late 60's when Harry Conn (MFM) was solicited by Loren Cunningham to teach said views at all the YWAM bases. He was also asked to serve as President but declined. For some ten years or so, YWAM actively studied the referenced research materials from Gordon Olson (BRC), who was introduced to YWAM by Harry Conn. They taught those views openly for about the same time. The views spoken of were described by the 1800's proponents as "Moral Government" a shortened form of "New England Theology" (see Edwards - Governmental View of the Atonement, derived from Hugh Grotious's work available from the Yale theological library. Samuel Hopkin's was known to favor that work as well). That was not the only renewal in theology that transpired at that time. Dr. Lorenzo Dow McCabe, professor of Philosophy and Mathematics as Ohio Weslyan published "Foreknowledge and Cognate Themes" and "Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies - A Necessity" 1882. Professor McCabe was the American source of what is now called "Open Theism." McCabe refered to his exposition of this new hermenutic, "Neo Arminianism" as he felt that the view extricated Arminianism from the charge of Theological Fatalism. It was from these and many other sources that Gordon Olson collected and published an abrievated amalgation of the two (MG and NeoA) in a training manual (Originally called "Sharing Your Faith" that was given to facilitate a two lecture series that he gave at the YWAM bases during the "early days." By the early 80's he had to revise and reduce the lecture series (due to difficulties related to age)and published the associated manual as "The Truth Will Set You Free." Mr. Olson and Dr. Harry Conn have both been Promoted, but the EEM resource offerings carry that work (with related tape series) and much more. I'm winding this "more than a passing nod" to identifying my background etc.. I'll close this section by noting that EEM has had Dr. Boyd and Dr. James Sanders as featured speakers at our anual Fall Conference series, not once, but twice! The most recent being 2004 where both were speakers. This should indicate that we believe that both these men are preaching a message that forms solidarity with us and are considered friends. It is at this point I signal the beginning of the "skip over material."
Believe it or not I'm ready to engage your questions now and without further ado I rise to the occasion.
I. "Why was it even necessary for there to be a betrayer anyway? . . ." Good question. When all is said and done we should not flinch when unsaved people ask about that. If you have red blood in your veins you will flinch and if there be no greater insight given then that's all we can do. Fortunately, there are cogent reasons for indicating that a betrayer was extrinic to a plan of Salvation by a God "who is not willing that anyone should perish." It would be a bitter task to quote that text knowing (depending on your theological persuasion - "Decree's" or Absolute Foreknowledge") that Judas was chosen to betray Christ (and that before the world was created) or that God viewed his freely chosen betrayal as an absolute certainly (for God's knowlege must be based on fact) before the creation of the world. There is no functional difference in either view, the end is the same. Jesus' betrayal MUST happen and this was decided/known before the world was created. As I said before, there is a scripturally founded alternative that permits an orthodox ground for denial that Judas' betrayal had anything to do with the Plan of Salvation. Without attempting a rigorus answer I think an interjection from A. T. Robertson's "Word Pictures ..." should suggest a new path to consider. In John 6.70-71 Jesus speaks to the present condition of one of his desciples in a context of general defection by the Jews from following him.
John 6:70-71 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Note Robertson's educated analysis (A.T. Robertson was a world renound expert in Biblical Languages who most seminary students know)
"John 6:70 - And one of you is a devil (kai ex humôn heis diabolos estin). Jesus does not say that Judas was a devil when he chose him, but that he is one now. In 13:2,27 John speaks of the devil entering Judas. How soon the plan to betray Jesus first entered the heart of Judas we do not know (12:4). One wonders if the words of Jesus here did not cut Judas to the quick."
This much is suggested in the New American Standard (NAS) version -
"Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil? Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him."
Usage, etymology, and syntax provide ample grounds for this translation. The Greek could be rendered with further clarity as follows: v 70 ... and yet one of you a devil now is. Further, verse 71 the word "should" in the KJV is misleading to present day readers. It carries a conotation of "must betray", but the word in the original e;mellen a verb (indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular) that could be properly translated with phrase as "was about to betray."
This translation shears off the theological wool from the subject matter. Jesus's statement is one of lament and incredulity that Judas, one of the 12, singled out for unparalled revelation of Divine things, even such a one has decided to betray his Lord. He knew from the beginning the formation of betrayal in the heart of one of His Disciples, freely loved and honored. This says nothing about a coupling with the plan of Salvation.
II. Jesus's statement that "it would be better if that man was never born" is not hyperbole. Surely, He would not wax poetic during such a serious moment. Rather, He is saying (and certainly to Judas by way of appeal) that to do this, the consequence would be so horrible that the offender himself would sooner not be born than to live and die with the single most infamous treachery on his consience.
III. In Judas' case, Jesus throws a flag down, if you will, a marker when Judas began the bailout/betrayal process. Remember, this was about eight months prior to the Crucifixion. For that period of time Judas successfully resisted all the love inspired attempts to wake him up to his peril, remind him of His love and patience and friendship. This was no mean feat. To be sure, it involved one of the most desperate battles with conscience ever attempted. We do not see Christ in the flesh. Judas was privaledged beyond all but 11 men to be in close proximity with the Word made flesh. Peter's denial of Christ has mitigating circumstances. In his case it was a blind spot revealed. How many people make a similar error in judgement by mistaking comprehension of truth as the measure of the character of a person. Time will not allow much more here, but I could talk to this issue for a night and a day but will refrain for now. This much I should point out, that when Peter impetuiously asserted that "even though these others betray Him, He would not" and that during a meeting of the most solemn import no less. Jesus is laying bare that which had the closest exercise of His Heart. And Peter is stung by Jesus' general announcement that He must proceed alone (Shepherd being "smitten" and the sheep scattered) and they must not intrude into His special strange work. Their "betrayal" is not the subject of the quotation. Being scattered does not necessarily cannote moral blemish. It could but it isn't required by its mention.
It is here that I merely mention the importance of understanding the two fold nature of "fulfillment" of scripture. The Grammars explain the telic vs the ecbatic fullment of scripture. In the first case, an event happening now, happened BECAUSE it was spoken of before. In the latter case, the event now occuring is fulfilled only in the sense that a thing has historical similitude, or indefinite reference to the result of a class of persons. Confused yet? We can go further into it later. The difference amounts to (in the latter) our notion of history repeating itself. Not that it must, but that it has fallen out such that it does. See the difference?
IV. This final question is as complex as any other concept we have discussed. I note it because it pulls on one's heart strings to see another person so swamped under an unbearable mental load (delusion?) that they see death as preverable to continued existence. I would like to ask that this be considered on a dedicated thread at another time. Topically, I think more than enought has been suggested to occupy high level thinking.
Grace and Peace from God to all who love Him,
Scott
W. Scott Taylor
EEM, Inc. Board Member
& Web Editor
http://eeminc.org
w§tày£Ö® | | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|