Between Two Worlds: Michael Jackson (1958-2009)

Alex Chediak Blog: Michael Jackson (1958-2009)

A Reader's Hebrew Bible

I've owned a copy of Zondervan's A Reader's Greek New Testament for a while now and love it. Now they've come out with A Reader's Hebrew Bible.

This looks like it could prove to be an excellent resource, especially for Summer Hebrew, Reading Biblical Hebrew, Genesis 1-4 and future ministry.

For more info, see Justin Taylor's blog or Amazon.

5 Reasons for the Historic Remnant from Romans 9-11: Reason 1 All Israel

1) “All Israel” in Romans 11:26 is not the same as in v. 25

This “all Israel” is probably the most debated issue between the FR and HR. It is common among the proponents of the FR view to say that since Israel in v.25 is observed by almost everyone to be the ethnic people of Israel, it would then follow that the Israel in v. 26 would be the same. Why would Paul change the definition of Israel in one verse to the next without letting his readers know he is doing so?

My answer is two-fold. First, I don’t think that Paul necessarily has to explicitly let his audience know that his definition of Israel has changed from one verse to the next. We see this very fact in the beginning of this whole question regarding Israel and the church in Romans 9:6. “But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” Now it may be argued that it is so obvious within the context that there needs no explanation. This may be true. But couldn’t the same be argued about Romans 11:25, 26. The context of Romans 11 certainly does encourage this reading. But even if the context does encourage a redefinition of “Israel,” this argument alone is not strong enough, hence the indication of “all” in v. 26, which qualifies Paul’s redefinition. This brings me to my second answer.

Advocates of the FR say that “Israel” in v. 25 has to mean the same in v. 26 because there are no qualifiers. But there is a qualifier. The word “all” in v. 26 makes the “Israel” in v. 26 unique in definition. But it may be noted now the inconsistency of the FR view regarding Israel in v. 25 & 26.

Those who hold the FR have a more difficult problem when arguing that Israel in both verses means the same. The “Israel” in v. 25 cannot be exactly the same in v. 26 unless you believe that every Israelite who has been, “hardened” (v.25) will then “be saved” (v.26). The “Israel” in v. 25 are a different group of people than the “Israel” in v. 26. The common FR advocate must concede this point to some degree. The “Israel” who was hardened in v. 25 are reprobate and the “Israel” who are living in the last days are “elect.” In light of this, it could be understood by the FR view that Paul makes a slight redefinition of “Israel” between these two verses no matter how you slice the pie. My understanding, however, doesn’t want to redefine Israel in eschatological terms, but rather in view of redemptive history.

I believe that he does redefine Israel, not by implication, but by explication in the word “all.” The two Israel’s are different, and thus grammatically marked differently. This is one of those instances where I would say, “Let ‘all’ be ‘all.’” If Paul really wanted the reader to understand “Israel” in v. 26 in terms of ethnicity, why did he even insert the word “all” at all? Wouldn’t it make better sense, if he was thinking FR, to just leave it at, “A partial hardening has come on Israel…and in this way Israel will be saved?” It doesn’t make sense that he insert the word “all”, unless he wanted to redefine “Israel.”

Therefore, in light of these two points, in addition to the small inconsistency with Israel meaning the exact same in v. 25 and 26, inclines me to believe that “all Israel” is being redefined significantly, namely it is not referring to ethnic Israel, but rather the elect. 1) Israel can be redefined by Paul within the same verse (Rom. 9:6) without any indication that he will do so. 2) There is an indication that he does so by qualifying the second “Israel” with the word “all.” 3) Unless you adhere to a certain form of universalism, Israel in v. 25 cannot be the exact same as Israel in v. 26.

Big picture, I believe Paul is beginning to conclude this three-chapter section in the same manner he began it in Romans 9, and thus he uses the same phraseology in ch.11. Paul has said, “Not everyone who is born of Abraham is considered part of the elect, or true Israel (9:6)…don’t you know that God has elected those outside of ethnic Israel to be apart of His covenant family (9:24). And you should know Gentiles that once every Gentile is grafted into the root of Israel (11:17), then it shall be the case that all of true Israel will be saved at that point (11:26).”

Should We Use The Word NEED?

Aaron:

Brothers,

I was thinking about using this word "need" and if there is a way that we
can use it in a way that doesn't connote deficiency. I still don't like the
term "pleased" because to me, it doesn't capture the necessity of God
being God. What I mean is this:

Could God "needing" to create the world be compared to God needing to not sin? It's not as though there is a deficiency in God, to be able to not
sin, but it is because of the fact that he is God that he will not sin.

Or...

Could God "needing" to create the world be compared to God "needing" to
punish the wicked. It is not as though there is a deficiency in God in
his exercise of wrath. Instead, it is because God is just that he will
exercise his wrath.

Or...

Did God "need" to send Jesus to the cross. Our answer would be NO. But we
might say that in order for God to display his love for his creatures, and
be a just God, he needed to send Jesus. Not in the sense of deficiency,
but once again, because this is who God is.

So it is with God "needing" to create. Because of who God is, and his very being, the creation of the universes needed to come to pass, but not
out of deficiency. Rather it was because the necessity of God to be God
in the "emanation" and "effulgence" of his Glory.

Bring it on...

..................................................

Reply: Jason

Okay, find me a verse that says God "needs" anything and I'll submit...

i know of at least one that says "God is not served by human hands as though he needed anything..."

My contention is mainly with the common connotations of the word "need" and rather than trying to "redeem" it, i think we can talk about why God does what he does without saying he "needed" to do something. Need primarily connotes lack and insufficiency to most of our ears. I don't think we gain enough to "rework" the definition and there is a lot to lose if people misunderstand the statement "God needed to make the world"

I don't think Edward's wants to confuse people and i think the word "need" would.

gently instructing those who oppose...=)

.....................................................

Reply: Toph

Would you then use the word "pleased" instead of "need" ? How would you respond to Aaron's critique that this word doesn't quite do justice to the necessity of God being God?

.....................................................

Reply: Shane

Score one for the Frenchster. I was reading Grudem's Systematic Theology for my online class from Southern and I came across these sentences when he was talking about the will of God: "It would be wrong for us ever to try to find a necessary cause for creation or redemption in the being of God himself, For that would rob God of his total independence. It would be to say that without us God could not truly be God. God's decisions to create and to redeem were totally free decisions" (page 213).

However, as I read it in context again I think he is merely denying the assertion that God was lacking something in himself that he needed to meet by creating the world. I don't think he was directly responding to Aaron O'Harra when he wrote his Systematic Theology.

So, the jury is still out. Can we rightly say (with the necessary qualifications afterwards) that "Yes, in one sense, God needed to create the world."

My vote is affirmative. This is similar to saying that "in one sense, God is three," and then giving the appropriate qualifiers. We don't have a problem using the word "trinity" even though the word itself is not in the Bible.

Maybe we were already done with this discussion, but Grudem got me thinking again!

..............

Oops. I should have kept reading. In his section on God's freedom (which he defines as "that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases"), Grudem clearly sides with Jason French on this issue. He says, "Because God is free we should not try to seek any more ultimate answer for God's actions in creation than the fact that he willed to do something and that his will has perfect freedom...Sometimes people try to discover the reason why God had to do one or another actions (such as create the world or save us). It is better to say that it was God's totally free will (working in a way consistent with his character) that was the final reason why he chose to create the world and to save sinners" (216).

In this line of thinking, however, wouldn't God's "need" to create the world be a necessary inference? - Because it pleased him, God needed to create the world.

Maybe Edwards will settle this with his Scripture portion.

.....................................................

Reply: Aaron

Brothers,

I don't think it's settled. Grudem does nothing for me as far as settling this. I think we would all agree with him. The problem is with this word "pleased" yes it is biblical, but at the same time it doesn't fully define the purpose of creation, just like "God so loved the world" does not fully define the reason why Christ came to die. In fact, Piper has 49 more reasons why Jesus came to die. Needless to say, I don't think that God's purpose in creation can be summed up in one word. I think it needs a manifold description.

Yes I'm willing to say God was "pleased" but in addition to that, I would say that to be God is to require (need) true virtue in the form of glory. God is "committed to" his own nature which is to show his glory, and therefore is committed to create, not out of "obligation" to us, but "obligation" to himself, his nature, his virtue? This preserves the absolute independence of God. For example:

The sun shines because it is in the very nature for it to do so. It certainly doesn't shine because it feels like if it didn't it wouldn't be the sun, it shines because that's what it does. The sun is committed to shine. The sun is devoted to shine. The sun is obligated to shine. The sun needs to shine. So it is with God.

Does this explanation suffice for a congregation?

One last question that this spurs in my head:

Would God still be God if he didn't create?

In our Beloved Savior,

......................................................

Reply: Jason

i didn't want to name drop, but me and Wayne spent a few years together back in the early 70s...hee hee...

anyway, the word "need" does nothing for me...it doesn't solve problems or answer questions, it seems to create more problems/questions in my mind and i think it would do the same for your average church goer...
if we stick with biblical language, at least we know we're on solid footing in regards to talking about God and about what He does...Acts 17:25, men, Acts 17:25.

i don't think we should say God "needed" to do anything when Scripture clearly states that He is Yahweh...
the "Self-existing One" who does whatever He pleases...

i say a hearty "amen" to brother Grudem, in ascribing to God what God ascribes to Himself, namely,
free sovereign willing to act or not to act and to be pleased with each action/non-action.

i heard part of a sermon on tv just last night and a guy said quote, "God needs us all..."

is this really the pool we want to swim in? You'll be qualifying "need" til the theological cows come home.

Can we think of any instance of where "needing" to create something doesn't show some type of deficiency in the context of someone doing something for a particular reason...

Not to offend O'harra or Edwards, but using inanimate objects I.e. fountain, sun, etc. doesn't quite cut it because they are not sentient beings...they do what they do, shine/overflow, because they were created to do so, not because they needed to in the same sense that when i'm hungry, i "need" to eat to placate my hunger.
i know all illustrations are deficient to some degree, especially when trying to explain God...
God defies all categories except his own...I AM.

We can do better than "need" language.

and i think aaron's getting closer with "commitment"

E.g. God is completely committed to His holiness (I.e. "prizing himself") and has always been completely committed to his holiness (prizing himself) and will always be completely committed to prizing himself. Therefore, His creation of the world is a further display of his commitment to show forth that glory, not in a way that was contrary to the perfect communion within the Godhead, or in a way that added to His eternal contentment/happiness, but in a way that was perfectly in keeping with his perfect communion with the Son and the Spirit. To say that God would be anything other than God is simply unintelligible. God simply IS. And always has been/will be who he IS.

"I, the LORD, do not change." Mal. 3:6

And because God is, God does. God doesn't do, because he "needs" to do. He does because he IS.
God creates because He IS a Creator. He saves because He IS a Savior. He condemns because He IS the Judge of all the earth.

God and need shouldn't go in the same sentence unless the sentence is, "We need God."

it's almost 1am, i'm sleepy...a.k.a. "i need to go to sleep in order that i might not be sleepy anymore."

.....................................................

Reply: Toph

Does this make sense (to use all of French's language except for that evil "n" word :) ) ?

A. God is completely committed to His holiness (I.e. "prizing himself")

B. God always been completely committed to his holiness (prizing himself)

C. God will always be completely committed to prizing himself.

D. Therefore, His creation of the world is a further display of his commitment to show forth that glory, not in a way that was contrary
to the perfect communion within the Godhead, or in a way that added to His eternal contentment/happiness, but in a way that was perfectly in keeping with his perfect communion with the Son and the Spirit.

E. Therefore, God needed to create the world in order that His creation of the world might be a further display of his commitment to show forth that glory.

Smashing False Idols: Keller on Evangelism

Here are the audio files that Tim mentioned in class today. Keller's evangelism focus is idolatry.

• Smashing False Idols: Gospel Realisation

• Smashing False Idols: Gospel Communication

• Smashing False Idols: Gospel Incarnation