Isa 45:7

[Judith]

I would like to hear some thoughts on the following passage;

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

What is your response to those who say God causes everything including people to sin based on that verse?

 

[TCassidy]

They do not understand what "darkness" is nor do they understand what "evil" is.

Darkness can merely be the absence of light and does not necessarily carry any connotation of unrighteousness or sin.

And "evil" does not always mean moral evil, but can, as here, simply mean calamity or trial.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What TCassidy said.
The KJV translation of that verse is not great. The NKJV gives 'calamity' instead of 'evil.'

 

[rlvaughn]

Also agree with what TCassidy says. I don't think there is a problem with the word "evil" but with the connotation we put on it. Often I (and many others) tend to "read into" biblical words the most common way we use it in our speech, without thinking to compare the full semantic range of meaning (and the context). "Evil" is the most common way the Hebrew word is translated in English (at least in the KJV & NASB) and it is used several times in Isaiah -- some that speak of immorality or wickedness and some that speak of distress, calamity -- something "bad" happening. Isaiah 47:11, in its context, is a good example of how God brings evil, mischief and desolation upon Babylon in judgment. This evil is something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity. It stands opposite to "peace" in this verse in Isaiah.

 

[reformed_baptist]

And "evil" does not always mean moral evil, but can, as here, simply mean calamity or trial.

Can you back that up exegetically?

 

[reformed_baptist]

I would like to hear some thoughts on the following passage;

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

What is your response to those who say God causes everything including people to sin based on that verse?

I think you need to consider the presuppositions that go into the question - for example why does one need to respond to such people? What is wrong with what they are saying?

Let's think about the greatest act of evil ever committed - the putting death of the Lord Jesus Christ! What does Peter have to say about that on the day of pentecost?

Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; (Act 2:23 NKJ)

Notice two thing Peter makes plain:

1) Jesus died by the design (determined purpose and foreknowledge) of God
2) Those that perpetrated the act of putting Jesus to death were sinning in doing so (lawless hands)

So, we have the greatest sin ever committed, committed at the design of God, whilst those who commit the act carry the guilt of it.

Now, let's look at this from another angle.

If God isn't the first cause of evil then what (or who) is and how does God retain sovereignty over something that is outside of his realm of control?

One more angle to consider is to examine ones won theology.

Maybe what i have said above makes no sense to you - maybe you reject all of it. Fair enough, your understanding of God's word is between you and him, but have you considered that most likely you actually hold to a position that advocates that God is the first cause of all things that happen, including evil?

If you believe that God created this world with knowledge of all that would happen in it - then by creating this world in the way that he did at the very least he was putting into motion a series of events that he knew would lead to evil prospering for a while with his created order (that makes him the first cause).

The only positions that deny God as the first cause are deism and open theism

 

[JonShaff]

If God isn't the first cause of evil then what (or who) is and how does God retain sovereignty over something that is outside of his realm of control?

What makes you so sure that you are asking the right questions concerning the sovereignty of God? Why do you assume that God granting people the ability to be a free moral agent is outside of the sovereignty of God? Have you ever considered the questions you ask and the doctrines you prescribe to may actually in fact limit the sovereignty of God?

 

[reformed_baptist]

What makes you so sure that you are asking the right questions concerning the sovereignty of God? Why do you assume that God granting people the ability to be a free moral agent is outside of the sovereignty of God?

Why not interact with what I have actually said rather then reverting to one of the 'set responses'?

Consider that I spoke clearly of moral responsibility for ones actions, I said:

2) Those that perpetrated the act of putting Jesus to death were sinning in doing so (lawless hands)

I never suggested that the people who acted in the death of Jesus acted in any other way but then through their own free choice (will, if you like) in fact the implication behind my words (the only way they make sense) is those people choose, of their own accord, to do what they did!

I believe in free will of man. However, I (at least) will take the time to carefully define what I mean in regards to freedom.

Take a locomotive for example - it is free to travel in any way within the conditions in which it was designed to move - it won't get very far once it comes off the rails. The freedom of a locomotive is subject to the conditions it exists in - in the same way our freedom is subject to the conditions we find ourselves in - it is not absolute - it is limited by our nature and by our environment.

Have you ever considered the questions you ask and the doctrines you prescribe to may actually in fact limit the sovereignty of God?

Yes, have you?

Let me ask you a question, and it is somewhat silly I know - if the president was to give you his power and authority wouldn't it become yours? What power and authority would he have left? If he came back to you demanding it back - it would be up to you to decide if you wanted to give him it back - so in that situation where is the sovereignty laying now - with the president or with you? Is not the sovereignty of the president now limited (in fact gone)?

I have considered your suggestion, and I have considered it well - but in all honestly it makes no sense to me to believe sovereignty surrendered is a demonstration of sovereignty - it is the surrender of sovereignty!

Now, are you willing to answer my points, let's focus on the last ones I was making.

1)Do you believe God created this world knowing that evil would be part of it (i am asking about mere knowledge)?

2) If you answer 'yes' then doesn't that suggest that God, by his act of creation, brought into being a world in which evil would exist?

3) Doesn't that make God the first cause of that evil?

Now, even if you disagree with what I have written in response to your statements about free will and limiting God's sovereignty those three questions still apply - they apply to anyone who claims to be a christian regardless of their view on the sovereignty of God!

You want me to think, are you also prepared to think?

 

[Judith]

I think you need to consider the presuppositions that go into the question - for example why does one need to respond to such people? What is wrong with what they are saying?

Let's think about the greatest act of evil ever committed - the putting death of the Lord Jesus Christ! What does Peter have to say about that on the day of pentecost?

Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; (Act 2:23 NKJ)

Notice two thing Peter makes plain:

1) Jesus died by the design (determined purpose and foreknowledge) of God
2) Those that perpetrated the act of putting Jesus to death were sinning in doing so (lawless hands)

So, we have the greatest sin ever committed, committed at the design of God, whilst those who commit the act carry the guilt of it.

Now, let's look at this from another angle.

If God isn't the first cause of evil then what (or who) is and how does God retain sovereignty over something that is outside of his realm of control?

One more angle to consider is to examine ones won theology.

Maybe what i have said above makes no sense to you - maybe you reject all of it. Fair enough, your understanding of God's word is between you and him, but have you considered that most likely you actually hold to a position that advocates that God is the first cause of all things that happen, including evil?

If you believe that God created this world with knowledge of all that would happen in it - then by creating this world in the way that he did at the very least he was putting into motion a series of events that he knew would lead to evil prospering for a while with his created order (that makes him the first cause).

The only positions that deny God as the first cause are deism and open theism

This is exactly the kind of thing I was confronted with and what I term in this case as someone who is a hyper-sovereign. Hyper anything to me is anyone who takes one part of scripture and builds a doctrine on it and neglects other parts of scripture that are of equal value which would more better form the doctrine with proper light. I am seeing more and more of this in the church.

 

[JonShaff]

Why not interact with what I have actually said rather then reverting to one of the 'set responses'?

Consider that I spoke clearly of moral responsibility for ones actions, I said:



I never suggested that the people who acted in the death of Jesus acted in any other way but then through their own free choice (will, if you like) in fact the implication behind my words (the only way they make sense) is those people choose, of their own accord, to do what they did!

I believe in free will of man. However, I (at least) will take the time to carefully define what I mean in regards to freedom.

Take a locomotive for example - it is free to travel in any way within the conditions in which it was designed to move - it won't get very far once it comes off the rails. The freedom of a locomotive is subject to the conditions it exists in - in the same way our freedom is subject to the conditions we find ourselves in - it is not absolute - it is limited by our nature and by our environment.



Yes, have you?

Let me ask you a question, and it is somewhat silly I know - if the president was to give you his power and authority wouldn't it become yours? What power and authority would he have left? If he came back to you demanding it back - it would be up to you to decide if you wanted to give him it back - so in that situation where is the sovereignty laying now - with the president or with you? Is not the sovereignty of the president now limited (in fact gone)?

I have considered your suggestion, and I have considered it well - but in all honestly it makes no sense to me to believe sovereignty surrendered is a demonstration of sovereignty - it is the surrender of sovereignty!

Now, are you willing to answer my points, let's focus on the last ones I was making.

1)Do you believe God created this world knowing that evil would be part of it (i am asking about mere knowledge)?

2) If you answer 'yes' then doesn't that suggest that God, by his act of creation, brought into being a world in which evil would exist?

3) Doesn't that make God the first cause of that evil?

Now, even if you disagree with what I have written in response to your statements about free will and limiting God's sovereignty those three questions still apply - they apply to anyone who claims to be a christian regardless of their view on the sovereignty of God!

You want me to think, are you also prepared to think?

I'll do my best to answer you in a timely manner, but i'm quite busy today.

 

[reformed_baptist]

This is exactly the kind of thing I was confronted with and what I term in this case as someone who is a hyper-sovereign. Hyper anything to me is anyone who takes one part of scripture and builds a doctrine on it and neglects other parts of scripture that are of equal value which would more better form the doctrine with proper light. I am seeing more and more of this in the church.

Ah, it is a 'hyper' position is it - by which you mean it is a position based upon 'one part of scripture' which 'neglects other parts'.

Firstly, that is not what 'hyper' means. 'hyper' in this context is prefix which simply means 'over' it implies excess or exaggeration and is the opposite of the prefix 'hypo'

Secondly, the use of a single text in a post on a discussion forum is not to be confused with the reliance on a single text for the belief in a certain doctrine - if I was responding to someone who was claiming Jesus was not God, would you say that I was ignoring the rest of scripture because I simply quoted John 1:1 or would assume that I had just chosen a text that was either the first that popped into my mind, or maybe i had selected one text that i felt best made my point?

Now, time and space do not permit me to go into great detail, but are a few points to be considered:

1) God rules all existence (good and bad) - Deut 32:39
2) God rules all circumstances (good and bad) - 1 swam 2:6-7; Job 2:10; Job 42:2; Psalm 68:20
3) God does all that he pleases - Psalm 103:19; 115:3; 136:6
4) God's rule is unrivaled - Ecc 7:13-14; Is 14:27; Is 45:5-7; Is 46:9-11; Jer 32:17; Lam 3:37-38; Dan 4:35
5) God's rule is unquestionable - Amos 3:6
6) God is sovereign over every thing that happens - working all things according to his good purposes Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11

Now, in regards to the proof text I provided in regards to the death of Jesus this is not the only place in scripture where we see the bible speak in this way:

Take for example Joseph's words to his brothers:

Genesis 50:20 "But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." (Gen 50:20) notice the word 'meant' it is used both of the design of his brothers and of God - they had an evil purpose, God had a good purpose.

You might also like to compare 2 Sam 24:1 where we are told that God moved David - compare that with the parallel account found in 1 Chron 21:1 where we are told it was satan?

When Paul speaks of God working 'all things' together for our good - do you believe Paul means 'all things except evil' or do you think Paul is saying that God is merely reactive - always on the go - playing catch up to work all of these circumstcnes that beyond his control into some pattern of goodness for us?

What about Eph 1:11 - is that 'all things' or 'all things except evil' that are being worked according to God's will.

Now, you might not agree with my understanding of any of these texts - you might reject what I believe they clearly teach - and that is between you and God - however what I have written must disabuse you of the notion that I have based my belief on a single text - furthermore (again whilst you may not accept my explanations) I am prepared to demonstrate that there is isn't a single text of scripture I am ignoring. Present me with any you wish and I will address it - again you might not agree with how I understand them but it will show you that I have dealt with them and I am not ignoring them.

Now, in the OP you asked a question - my answer might not have been exactly what you were looking for - does that means it isn't worthy of a reasoned response?

 

[reformed_baptist]

I'll do my best to answer you in a timely manner, but i'm quite busy today.

I'm a patient man

 

[Judith]

Ah, it is a 'hyper' position is it - by which you mean it is a position based upon 'one part of scripture' which 'neglects other parts'.

Firstly, that is not what 'hyper' means. 'hyper' in this context is prefix which simply means 'over' it implies excess or exaggeration and is the opposite of the prefix 'hypo'

Secondly, the use of a single text in a post on a discussion forum is not to be confused with the reliance on a single text for the belief in a certain doctrine - if I was responding to someone who was claiming Jesus was not God, would you say that I was ignoring the rest of scripture because I simply quoted John 1:1 or would assume that I had just chosen a text that was either the first that popped into my mind, or maybe i had selected one text that i felt best made my point?

Now, time and space do not permit me to go into great detail, but are a few points to be considered:

1) God rules all existence (good and bad) - Deut 32:39
2) God rules all circumstances (good and bad) - 1 swam 2:6-7; Job 2:10; Job 42:2; Psalm 68:20
3) God does all that he pleases - Psalm 103:19; 115:3; 136:6
4) God's rule is unrivaled - Ecc 7:13-14; Is 14:27; Is 45:5-7; Is 46:9-11; Jer 32:17; Lam 3:37-38; Dan 4:35
5) God's rule is unquestionable - Amos 3:6
6) God is sovereign over every thing that happens - working all things according to his good purposes Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11

Now, in regards to the proof text I provided in regards to the death of Jesus this is not the only place in scripture where we see the bible speak in this way:

Take for example Joseph's words to his brothers:

Genesis 50:20 "But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." (Gen 50:20) notice the word 'meant' it is used both of the design of his brothers and of God - they had an evil purpose, God had a good purpose.

You might also like to compare 2 Sam 24:1 where we are told that God moved David - compare that with the parallel account found in 1 Chron 21:1 where we are told it was satan?

When Paul speaks of God working 'all things' together for our good - do you believe Paul means 'all things except evil' or do you think Paul is saying that God is merely reactive - always on the go - playing catch up to work all of these circumstcnes that beyond his control into some pattern of goodness for us?

What about Eph 1:11 - is that 'all things' or 'all things except evil' that are being worked according to God's will.

Now, you might not agree with my understanding of any of these texts - you might reject what I believe they clearly teach - and that is between you and God - however what I have written must disabuse you of the notion that I have based my belief on a single text - furthermore (again whilst you may not accept my explanations) I am prepared to demonstrate that there is isn't a single text of scripture I am ignoring. Present me with any you wish and I will address it - again you might not agree with how I understand them but it will show you that I have dealt with them and I am not ignoring them.

Now, in the OP you asked a question - my answer might not have been exactly what you were looking for - does that means it isn't worthy of a reasoned response?

Ruling over and causing or ordaining are two different things. We know that God does not always get His will. 1 Thess. 4:3
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

We know this does not happen perfectly or even close.

As for hyper that is the term I choose.

 

[rlvaughn]

Reformed, I agree with you that God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. I don't see how a Bible believer can avoid that conclusion. I also agree with all six points you list above (beginning with "God rules all existence (good and bad)...").

That said, I don't see that as the point of Isaiah 45:7. "Evil" there is set in contrast to "peace" rather than in contrast to "good". (And I don't think peace is inherently always a moral good.) How do you see that verse particularly?

 

[reformed_baptist]

Judith,

I wrote quite a lot in response to you - it took you two minutes to pen a response and that isn't even enough time to look up the various texts I cited - let alone consider them and write a considered response - I can only assume that means you're not interested in looking into what I have said and your question about Is 45:7 is more about seeking a confirmation for what you want it to mean rather then serious interaction with the text itself.

Ruling over and causing or ordaining are two different things.

They can be, they also share a certain semantic overlap!

Now, do you wish to explain how this addresses what I have said?

We know that God does not always get His will. 1 Thess. 4:3
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

We know this does not happen perfectly or even close.

Isn't that a little over simplistic?

Now, I could point out the different semantic domains between this text in 1 Thess 4:3 and texts like Eph 1:11 - clearly 1 Thess 4:3 is a declaration of God's desire for our lives not a declaration of his sovereign will - for if it was we would have to comply consider for example Is 14:27 " For the LORD of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" (not to mention again the other texts I presented in my previous posts) - I'm sure it is not your intention to set scripture against scripture and create a contradiction - but in reality that is precisely what your failure to take semantic domains into account actually achieves in this instance.

This is not a verse that contradicts God's sovereignty in creation as I have stated it - it is a verse that tells us one aspect of what God desires for us as we seek to live for him.

As for hyper that is the term I choose.

OK, but if that is the case you have to accept that this means that neither I, or anyone else, can ever meaningfully communicate with you - if you are going to choose to use words in different ways to their established meanings - but rather allot your own meaning as suits you how can I talk meaningfully to you - I can't be certain you understand what I have written to mean what I intended it to mean - after all you might have a very different meaning for some of the words I have used.

Furthermore, how can I can communicate to you about scripture - if you want a word to mean something then that is what it means - end of story.

I guess your statement also implies that you still believe my position is based upon one text of scripture and that I am ignoring the rest of the bible that disagrees with me

 

[reformed_baptist]

Reformed, I agree with you that God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. I don't see how a Bible believer can avoid that conclusion. I also agree with all six points you list above (beginning with "God rules all existence (good and bad)...").

That said, I don't see that as the point of Isaiah 45:7. "Evil" there is set in contrast to "peace" rather than in contrast to "good". (And I don't think peace is inherently always a moral good.) How do you see that verse particularly?

In my first post I said I was addressing the presuppositions behind the question rather then the verse itself when the OP states:

"What is your response to those who say God causes everything including people to sin based on that verse?"

I was focusing on the "those who say God causes everything including people to sin" portion.

However I don't mind addressing the verse, firstly though I think it is best to start from v5 and you might note my translation does not use the word 'evil' but 'calamity.' which is a better translation in my opinion.

I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me, That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.' (Isa 45:5-7)

God is stressing his control over all the extremes of life, as he does else where (in the texts I have provided above) - in those texts we see God declaring his control over life/ death, poverty/ wealth, sickness/ health here in Isaiah 45:7 the contrast is between peace/evil so it is quite correct to deduce that evil is the opposite of peace in this case, and that therefore we can determine the precise sense of the word evil by determining the precise sense of the word peace.

I am quite happy to say the direct sense of this text is that God exercises sovereign control peace in this world, and also over calamity, distress, conflict (and all those things that are the opposite of peace).

But what is the implication of that direct sense? Is this not a type of synecocphe? By that I mean to suggest that God is detailing one aspect of his sovereignty to speak of the whole of his sovereignty? When God says, I make peace and I create
calamity I would suggest that he saying "I am sovereign," and as such it is a the kind of statement that is affirmed in the NT in places like Eph 1:11.

Hence I would only use this text as part of a bigger presentation - I wouldn't isolate it and use it a my sole text to build a defense of my doctrine on - but nor would I say it does not speak to the doctrine.

I hope that answers your question

 

[TCassidy]

Can you back that up exegetically?

רע, Brown, Driver, Briggs.

BDB Definition:
1) bad, evil (adjective)
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity (noun masculine)
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
3) evil, misery, distress, injury (noun feminine)
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)

 

[rlvaughn]

I hope that answers your question

Yes, I think it does, quite nicely. I agree with your principles laid (although I reserve the right to backtrack on something I might have misunderstood ), but would quibble over whether "calamity" is a better translation. I think "evil" -- properly understood -- better encompasses the totality of "all those things that are the opposite of peace," in my opinion.

 

[reformed_baptist]

Yes, I think it does, quite nicely. I agree with your principles laid (although I reserve the right to backtrack on something I might have misunderstood ), but would quibble over whether "calamity" is a better translation. I think "evil" -- properly understood -- better encompasses the totality of "all those things that are the opposite of peace," in my opinion.

I'm happy to let that quibble go - I prefer the lack of potential misunderstanding in 'calamity' or 'evil'

 

[Van]

I am just responding to the OP, and not necessarily to any of the following posts.
Exhaustive determinism is the view that everything that happens is foreordained (predestined). The problem with this view is it makes God the author of sin. One group actually says God ordained whatsoever comes to pass but is not the author of sin. Cognitive dissonance on display. Another group says God knows what will occur but somehow (a mystery) we can make decisions that alter the outcome of our lives. Neither view is logical or rational.

To back up a bit, the verse does not teach exhaustive determinism It does not say God causes all evil, or calamity, that leap would only be made by agenda driven eisegsis.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. If our house is destroyed by an earthquake, we would say that was evil because it was adverse to our desires and expectations. God did create our harsh environment, with all sorts of calamities, which if we are a victim, we would see as evil. But since our harsh evironment fosters us to seek God as a refuge, its purpose is not evil in God's eye.

In addition to the calamity that God creates, people make choices that are evil and add to the pain and suffering here on earth. God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, which defines His sovereignty.