Scripture contains many apparent contradictions. And let's be frank, it is these apparent contradictions that give rise to many of the theological differences and disputes among evangelical Christians.
To give just two examples. Firstly, there is an apparent contradiction between John 3:16 where God is said to "love the world" and Psalm 5:5 where God is said to "hate all who do wrong". Secondly, there is an apparent contradiction between Daniel 4:35 which indicates God is absolutely sovereign over all things: "He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'" and verses like Luke 7:30 where "The Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves" or Matthew 23:37 where Christ says over the city of Jerusalem: "How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Whatever way you look at it, these are at least apparent contradictions.
Now, for liberal scholarship, apparent contradictions do not represent much of a problem. The answer of liberal scholarship is that the contradictions are real since the Bible is more-or-less deemed to be the product of merely human writers each with their own ideas and views of God, humanity and the world. Liberal scholarship has no problem with the fact that Isaiah's and Ezekiel's or Paul's and Peter's theology contradict each other. It's no less surprising for liberal theology that two biblical authors should disagree than it is for Calvin and Arminius or Wright and Piper to disagree. However, for evangelical scholarship, apparent contradictions represent a real problem whenever we seek to interpret Scripture. Because we believe that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and therefore behind the different human authors is the voice of the one divine author, we evangelicals have to accept that any contradictions in Scripture are only apparent not real.
In this post we are going to look at one such example and see how we might go about resolving the apparent difficulties.
Isaiah 45:7 reads in the NIV (with God speaking): "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The word translated "prosperity" is the rich Hebrew word shalom, often translated as "peace" though it can also mean wholeness, well-being, health. More significantly for our discussion, the word translated as "disaster" is the Hebrew word ra which is often translated as "evil" or "wickedness". In the King James Version, the verse reads: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
A number of translations have perhaps sought to soften Isaiah's words by indicating that the "evil" concerned is what might be called "natural evil" and so the NIV has "disaster". Other translations have "woe" or "calamity" here, suggesting that the evil is not moral evil or wickedness. I am not arguing against this view. The context might well point in that direction.
However, many Calvinists believe Isaiah 45:7 is a proof text that God is in total, meticulous and sovereign control of everything that happens whether it be good or evil in all senses of the words. I was quite surprised to find Bruce Ware doing this in his book God's Greater Glory. Ware argues quite strongly that to deny God's providential hand in all things including evil (and not just in the sense of allowing evil or merely permitting it) is to deny the plain meaning of a text like Isaiah 45:7. He even points out how the same word for "create" (bara) that is used solely for God's activity in creation (e.g. Genesis 1:1) is used here of evil. For Ware the "evil" of Isaiah 45:7 is definitely something God creates.
Okay, so on that basis, if God creates evil - and it is not just hurricanes and floods we are talking about here - then we have a real problem, don't we? We have a glaring apparent contradiction with other verses in Scripture.
If God in a sense creates evil how does this square with a cardinal point of Reformed (and indeed all reputable evangelical theologies) that God is in no way the author of sin? The Westminster Confession of Faith is typical of Reformed creeds in stating: "God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin." (WCF 5.4)
That God cannot be the author of sin is abundantly clear in Scripture, not only in all the verses that speak of his all-good, all-loving and all-holy character, but many times quite explicitly as well.
1 John 1:5 reads: "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
Habakkuk 1:13 speaks to God thus: "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing."
The Psalmist notes in Psalm 5:4 (NKJV): "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You."
And James 1:13 is very clear: "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone."
Finally 1 John 2:16 states: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
So then how do we resolve the problem of Isaiah saying that God creates moral evil and these other verses showing that God cannot tolerate sin, far less be the author of sin, which is of course moral evil?
The most common way is to adopt the view we've looked at already that the evil spoken of in Isaiah 45:7 is not moral evil or sin but natural "evil" in the sense of natural disasters, fatal diseases, etc. This would seem to me to be a reasonable approach and it taken by many Calvinists, such as John MacArthur. But for other Calvinists, like Bruce Ware and Gordon Clark, such an approach is unacceptable because they hold the view that everything that occurs is God's will (is part of God's purpose or plan). The idea that moral evil is totally outside the scope of what God creates, or is outside the scope of God's plans or purposes in any sense (even by only allowing it), is a non-starter for Christian theology.
But let us assume Ware is correct that Isaiah 45:7 is talking about all kinds of evil, moral as well as natural. Personally I actually think he is correct in this and the King James Version translates it accurately. I think Isaiah's high doctrine of divine sovereignty displayed throughout chapters 40-48 would indicate he meant that God is sovereign over all kinds of evil. If this is so, then how can we harmonise this verse's teaching that God somehow "creates" evil though Scripture is clear that he is in no sense the author of sin?
The only alternative I can see is to recognise the biblical concept that God, as Creator and Ruler of the universe, is regarded as taking a sovereign's responsibility for events that happen in his domain (in God's case, the universe), including evil events, even though he is not directly responsible for any evil. In the ancient world the concept was well-recognised that a king or potentate, as leader of a nation, bore some kind of official responsibility for the actions of those under his rule.
In this sense God is the "creator of evil" because he is the Creator of the universe including beings to whom he gave the ability to choose good or evil (and who consistently choose evil since the Fall). And even when he permits evil to occur, in his wisdom he can make use of evil to bring about good.
So here are two viable models for how to reconcile how God can create "evil" yet not be the "author of sin." First, it is possible that the "evil" referred to in Isaiah 45:7 concerns natural disasters and calamities rather than sin or wickedness. Second, even if the "evil" of Isaiah 45:7 does include sin and wickedness, God would only be the "creator" of such in the indirect sense in which he is creator of creatures he permits to commit sins, who are then solely morally responsible for those sins and wickedness. As ruler of the domain where those creatures carry out their actions "under his watch" so to speak and for his providential purposes, which are always and only good.
No comments:
Post a Comment