Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Exodus 4:24 ¶ Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Exodus 4:24 ¶ Now it happened at the lodging place, that the LORD met Moses and sought to kill him [making him deathly ill because he had not circumcised one of his sons]. [Gen 17:9-14] |
Subject: God sought Moses to kill him |
Bible Note: Dear budderfligh, You've got a superior handle on practical causality than most of us, that is certain! The terminology used in the insurance field must be similar to that used in the legal field. The thought of culpability from a legal standpoint crossed my mind as I was composing my post to you, but I have to admit that I've not really studied the question. American jurisprudence has its roots in Biblical principles. (The Puritans, shortly after settling in New England, founded Harvard University and, a year later, Princeton University. At that time a seminary degree was almost the same as a law degree. The notion being that justice could never be understood outside of a clear understanding of God, the giver of law, and His justice.) Nevertheless, your examples and terminology are a great help to us. Thank you for their explanation. In Aristotle's causality the following terms are used: material cause (the material out of which a product is made), formal cause (the blueprint or a plan of the end product), final cause (the purpose for which the end product is made), efficient cause (the one making the end product), and instrumental cause (the means by which the end product is made). The Reformers, being well familiar with Aristotle's causality, expressed the "Five Solas" in these categories: Sola fide, the material cause; sola scriptura, the formal cause; soli Deo gloria, the final cause; sola gratia, the efficient cause; and solus Christus, the instrumental cause. You asked how I interpreted Isaiah 45:7. We believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scripture as a whole. In other words, all of Scripture is a single, cogent communication. It is a rational whole. Despite our first impressions, the Scripture never contradicts itself. Consequently, we can bring to bear on any particular passage, any other passage discussing the same topic. (This is what the theologians call "the analogy of faith.") We know that God is never morally culpable for sin (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 145:17; Isaiah 6:3; James 1:13-18). So our interpretation of Isaiah 45:7 must be in harmony with the fact of God's perfect holiness and righteousness. One thing that might help us with a harmonious rendering is to look at the word evil. Note that the prophet is not contrasting good and evil as in, for example, Isaiah 5:20. Instead he contrasts peace and evil. Therefore, it would not harm the sense of this passage to translate this word as calamity (as has been done in the NASB and ESV). In other words, God is declaring His authority and might to Israel. He is the mighty sustainer (Isaiah 45:1), defender and guide (v2), universal God (vv3 and 6), source of all authority and rightful elector (v4), provider (v5), sovereign Lord (v7), and creator (v8). (Interesting that Paul pulls this same argument of God's universal, sovereign authority in election and redemption (vv8-9) in Romans 9:20-21. His arguments give us a great deal of insight into this passage, too.) Hence, verse 7 is specifically saying, that God creates light and darkness (authority over creation) and is the source of peace and calamity (authority over nations). Now, there are numerous places in Scripture where God actually effects things that cause us puzzlement, and challenge our presuppositions and assumptions. Of course, we should expect that, given the limitations of our intelligence, the context from which we necessarily make observations, and our overall deficiencies because of the plenary vitiation of sin. I'll briefly comment on the question regarding the contrast between opposites (light and dark, good and evil) as a means of instruction. This shifts us into "Why" questions. For the reasons above, plus the nature of revelation itself (Deuteronomy 29:29), "Why" questions are particularly difficult. But I'd have to say that evil exists for many other reasons beyond the matter of communicating to us the nature of good. God uses it to accomplish a number of things, including His glory (Proverbs 16:4; Psalm 76:10; Romans 9:14-24; etc.), our good (Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28), etc. Even His righteous punishment of evil demonstrates His holiness. But the discussion of all that will take us far afield indeed! In Him, Doc |