The Creator of Evil or the Author of Sin?

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.

Grasping God's Word

The process of interpreting and grasping the Bible is similar to embarking on a journey that consists in a series of steps.

The journey begins in the world of the Bible and the original audience of the passage being studied and ends in our world and our life as we apply the message to our own situation.

Step 1: Grasping the Text in Their Town

Question: What did the text mean to the biblical audience?

Read carefully and observe to see as much as possible in the text. Try to summarise what the passage meant to the original audience in one or two sentences.

Step 2: Measuring the Width of the River to Cross

Question: What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?

Some of the differences to consider will be: time, language, culture, situation and whether in the Old Testament (covenant) or New Testament (covenant). Look at this stage to find rather than minimize differences.

Remember for some passages, the river will be wider than for others.

Step 3: Crossing the Principlizing Bridge

Question: What is the theological principle in this text?

This is most difficult step. Find the theological principle or principles in the text. These principles should be generated from the text and not be brought to the text by us. What is the message of the passage that comes across the river of time, culture, situation etc?

The principle must be related to the meaning found in Step 1. In what ways are we the same as the original audience, despite the differences between us?

The principle should be: 

• reflected in the text
• timeless
• not tied to the specific situation
• not culturally bound
• in line with the rest of Scripture
• relevant to the original and the present-day audience

Step 4: Grasping the Text in Our Town

Question: How should individual Christians today apply the theological principle in their lives?

This step is about exploring how the principle(s) we have identified apply to the church and our lives today.

What are the implications of the principle identified for what we believe as Christians? What our church should be like? How we should think and act as followers of Jesus?

__

The method of Bible study described here is taken from the very helpful book, Grasping God's Word, by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hayes. Much more detail on this approach to Bible study can be found by consulting this work.

Evangelical Resistance to the Gospels

An interesting piece this by Tim Gombis on how we as evangelicals tend to spiritualise what Jesus asks of us in order to avoid actually doing it!

http://timgombis.com/2012/04/26/evangelical-resistance-to-the-gospels-how-why/

I think he's on the money and will be hitting a few raw nerves with this too (if I can mix my metaphors like that).

Dig Deeper!

Dig Deeper!: Tools to Unearth the Bible's Treasure
by Nigel Benyon & Andrew Sach
Inter-Varsity Press 2005

This little book is a basic introduction to reading and interpreting the Bible. It is designed for anyone interested in getting more out of their time reading the Scriptures - almost no prior knowledge is assumed - though it is very much a beginners text. Don't expect a comprehensive book on hermeneutics or anything approaching it. Although I don't agree with everything they say, I think Fee and Stuart's How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth is a much better book than this while still being accessible to a similar readership.

Dig Deeper would probably be most useful to maybe teenagers looking to get to grips with reading and understanding the Bible. In fact, it is written in the kind of style that leads me to think this is precisely the intended readership that Benyon and Sach were trying to reach.

I quite liked the way the book describes each interpretative technique as a "tool" and the collection of techniques as a "toolbox" for students of the Word of God. Each tool is described simply and concisely in about six pages which include a worked example for each tool. The subjects covered are all vital for Bible readers who want to understand God's Word properly and desire to come to sensible conclusions about what they believe and what God's Word might be challenging them to live out in their lives.