Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.”

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an exvangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response.

Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages (thanks Augustine). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages tell us all that God has made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31); James 1:13 says, “No one undergoing a trial should say, “I am being tempted by God,” since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself doesn’t tempt anyone”; 1 John 1:5 says, “God is light, and there is not darkness in him”; And lastly, the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. And Scripture says Jesus was without sin (Hebrews 4:15), never committed a sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5), and “no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). So, if we do not consider these passages in light of the passage of Isaiah 45:7 to offer a consistent interpretation about the character of God, then we will misrepresent what the Bible teaches about God.

So, in light of these passages, taking them equally as Scripture declaring true statements about God, it seems we have a contradiction. What is a contradiction? So many skeptics of the Bible throw this term out there not understanding what a true contradiction is. A true contradiction is to say something is one thing but not that one thing at the same time. Or, more technically put: something is a and not a. For example, it is a contradiction to say my car is in the garage and not in the garage at the same time. Or, I am typing on my computer right now, but I am not typing on my computer right now. It cannot be both things at the same time; it has to be one or the other. As to our texts at hand, it seems we have Scripture saying that God is evil but God is not evil. So, what do we do?

Well, it is important to note that modern translations do not follow the KJV version, in their rendering of this passage that God creates evil. Rather, modern translations translate the Hebrew word ra as “calamity,” “disaster,” “bad times,” and “woe.” Why the difference? The word ra has a wide range of meaning, from a nasty taste to full moral evil, being used some 640 times in the Old Testament, with 275 instances where ‘trouble’ or ‘calamity’ is the meaning. Why did the KJV translators render it as evil? One possibility is that as English was in it’s infancy stages, the range of English words was quite narrow, with evil being the closest they could use to translate ra. With that said, we don’t know for certain why evil was the word the KJV translators used. But while ra is often translated as evil in Scripture, how do we ultimately determine that the translation is correct? The context of the passage. Many errors and misunderstandings are created when people take a single verse out of its context to determine what it says. We would never do it with any other historical document, but many people think they can do that with the Bible.

This chapter is full of historical calamities coming on people through Cyrus, whom the Lord raised up to restore Israel. And throughout this chapter, we see God through Isaiah asserting the uniqueness and power of the only true God, Yahweh, in demonstrating how he will raise up Cyrus, a leader from another nation, whom he called by name, to carry out his will of restoring Israel. The chapter continues, saying that God will go before him opening city gates, provide riches for him, and will strengthen him. And he will do this for his people, as a demonstration that he is the only true God and there is no other besides him. And to show that God is the true Creator God who governs his creation, God through Isaiah says, “I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.”

This is a historical passage, not a philosophical passage about God creating good and evil; rather, in the text, God is contrasting shalom, which means “peace; prosperity” with ra. Well, what would the proper contrasting word be in light of the context? What is the opposite of peace and prosperity? Disaster and calamity. One could make a case for “evil” if Isaiah were contrasting evil with righteousness. But based on the context, calamity is the more accurate rendering of the Hebrew word ra than “evil.” And therefore, Isaiah is telling us that God is in control of everything; the good times that bring peace, prosperity, and well-being as well as the terrible times, when war, calamity, natural disasters, and death come upon people. So, in this context, ra functions as an antonym of shalom (peace) (cf. Ps. 49:1–2). A passage similar in context to this one, employing the same word ra is Jeremiah 18:11, where the Lord says through Jeremiah, “So now, say to the men of Judah and to the residents of Jerusalem, ‘This is what the LORD says: Look, I am about to bring harm [ra] to you and make plans against you. Turn now, each from your evil way, and correct your ways and your deeds.” God, as sovereign over his creation, brings peace and also disaster to it because of humanity’s evil and wicked ways (see Deuteronomy 30:11–20; 32:39; cf. Amos 3:6).

If you know the history of Israel, then you know that they consistently strayed from God’s commandments, following after false gods and the sinful practices of other nations. And so, though God has brought them peace and prosperity as his covenant people, so too he brought them war and calamity for breaking that covenant (see Deut 28). But how does this chapter end? He continues, passage after passage, declaring his righteousness, power, sovereignty, and glory as the only Savior of Israel, who comes to redeem and restore them because of his love for them. God’s intention, through Isaiah, is to comfort his people. He is the God who has made all things, governs all things, and is the Holy One of Israel, who will redeem them. So, does God “create evil”? No, he extends grace to those who are evil, because of his patient, steadfast love, who wants to do good for his creatures. It is he, the God-man Christ Jesus, who paid the penalty for their evil, so that they might experience God’s mercy and grace, being reconciled to him by faith in Christ Jesus.

~ Roman 11:36 ~

_____________________

Bibliography:

J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction Commentary (InterVarsity Press, 2015).

Gary Smith. Isaiah 40-66. Vol. 15B. The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2009)

John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998).

Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary, 2012).

John, Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Isaiah (Emmaus Academic, 2021).

Comments

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

First Timothy 2:12 - On Women in the Pastorate - A Critical Response to Nijay Gupta

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude ste

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Boethius: The Logic of Unity and Plurality in One God

In the “Introduction” to a standard English translation of Boethius’ Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy , it is stated that “Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the scholastic theologians” (X). Philosophy is aimed at explaining the nature of the world ( the natural ). Theology’s aim is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine revelation ( the supernatural ). Boethius was the seminal figure in preparing the way for the synthesis of these two disciplines, with philosophy serving the task of theology (i.e., the handmaiden to the King of sciences) .

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog