# Isa. 45:7



## JM (Oct 26, 2006)

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and *create evil*: I the LORD do all these things.

Atheists bring this verse all the time. I noticed that modern translations do not use the words, "create evil" in this passage, but according to Strong's the word means "bad and evil." In Genesis 2:9 "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." The same word is translated "evil" by most modern translations, why? Should Genesis read, "the tree of knowledge of good and calamity?"

Can anyone shed light on this passages?

Peace,

jm


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 26, 2006)

The meaning in these two places is not defined by the etymology as much as by the context. God cannot be the author of evil, as in that which is against His revealed law. He certainly can create calamity/castatrohe to display his glory and further his purpose.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 26, 2006)

Calvin's comments on this passage are famous:



> Making peace, and creating evil. By the words "light" and "darkness" he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts "peace" not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts "peace" with "evil," that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted "righteousness" with "evil," there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the "evil" of punishment, but not of the "evil" of guilt.
> But the Sophists are wrong in their exposition; for, while they acknowledge that famine, barrenness, war, pestilence, and other scourges, come from God, they deny that God is the author of calamities, when they befall us through the agency of men. This is false and altogether contrary to the present doctrine; for the Lord raises up wicked men to chastise us by their hand, as is evident from various passages of Scripture. (1 Kings 11:14, 23.) The Lord does not indeed inspire them with malice, but he uses it for the purpose of chastising us, and exercises the office of a judge, in the same manner as he made use of the malice of Pharaoh and others, in order to punish his people. (Exodus 1:11 and 2:23.) We ought therefore to hold this doctrine, that God alone is the author of all events; that is, that adverse and prosperous events are sent by him, even though he makes use of the agency of men, that none may attribute it to fortune, or to any other cause.


 
Although he seems a little inconsistent when you take his section of the Institutes into account:



> Institutes, Book I, Chapter 18, Section 3
> 
> I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isa_45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amo_3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him (Deu_19:5), so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "œto do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Act_4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.


 
It is clear that Calvin's view is that God willed evil, yet he is not the "author" (In the 2nd causes sense of the term) of it.

This comes back to the distinction in reformed theology between 1st and 2nd causes. In the 1st cause sense, God caused everything that comes to pass. In the 2nd cause sense, the means cause things. This is very important to keep in mind!

I personally see Isa. 45:7 speaking in the compound sense (i.e. God is the 1st cause of these things). In the ultimate sense, it is God's will that evil exists.

Loraine Boettner has a helpful section in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination that deals with God and Evil.

See this thread for a helpful discussion on God being the cause of evil.


----------



## JM (Oct 26, 2006)

> We are not using the word "create" in the same sense as God's original creation out of nothing, but we are referring to God's control over things that he has already created. That is, although God must actively cause evil thoughts and inclinations in the creature, and then he must actively cause the corresponding evil actions, he does not create new
> material or substance when he does this, since he is controlling what he has already created.
> 
> It is true that a person sins according to his evil nature, but as Luther writes, it is God who "creates" this evil nature in each newly conceived person after the pattern of fallen Adam, whose fall God also caused. And then, God must actively cause this evil nature to function and the person to act according to it. Luther writes that God never allows this evil nature to be idle in Satan and in ungodly people, but he continuously causes it to function by his power.
> ...


 Vincent Cheung


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 27, 2006)

JM said:


> Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and *create evil*: I the LORD do all these things.
> 
> Atheists bring this verse all the time. I noticed that modern translations do not use the words, "create evil" in this passage, but according to Strong's the word means "bad and evil." In Genesis 2:9 "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." The same word is translated "evil" by most modern translations, why? Should Genesis read, "the tree of knowledge of good and calamity?"
> 
> ...




Evil is the correct translation of ra and atheists are correct in pointing it out. I don't recall where it is right now, but Clark has a rather long discussion of ra in one of his books. I'm not sure exactly to what end an atheist might point this out, but I assume it's to make the claim that the Scriptures contradict themselves; on the one hand God is said not to be “the author or approver of sin,” and, on the other, God is said to be the cause of evil and sin. Therefore, how can one be the cause of evil and sin and not be the responsible agent or author of evil and sin. For my money, Clark provides a solution to this problem in his piece, _Determinism and Responsibility_ which concludes in part:



> This much is sufficient for our solution. Granted many other things remain to be said. The necessity of means or secondary, proximate causes might be further emphasized; sin as the judicial ground of divine punishment, because God so determined it should be, might be mentioned; further appendages and replies to objections could be tacked on. Only one need be examined. Does the view here proposed make God the Author of sin? Why the learned divines who formulated the various creeds so uniformly permitted such a metaphorical expression to becloud the issue is a puzzle. This view most certainly makes God the First and Ultimate Cause of everything. But very slight reflection on the definition of responsibility and its implication of a superior authority shows that God is not responsible for sin. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=75



As mentioned above, Clark’s solution hinges on his definition of responsibility, which is; “Let us call a man responsible, then, when he may be justly rewarded or punished for his deeds. That is, the man must be answerable to someone, to God, for responsibility implies a superior authority who punishes or rewards.”	

See also Gary Crampton’s review of Clark’s, God and Evil: Problem Solved at:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/GodandEvil.htm

Also helpful is the subsequent letter from a reader taking issue with both Clark and Crampton and Crampton’s response which can be found near the end of the below pdf: 

http://www.fpcr.org/pdf/BlueBanner9-4&6.pdf 

Hope that helps.


----------



## JM (Oct 27, 2006)

Thanks for the link!


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 19, 2006)

JM said:


> Can anyone shed light on this passages?



It means what it says...God created evil for his own glory.


----------



## Archlute (Nov 19, 2006)

Yes, Isaiah 45:7 should be translated, as in the ESV "I make well-being and create calamity", and no, Genesis 2:9 should not be rendered as anything other than "good and evil". The Genesis passage is clearly speaking in ethical categories, while the Isaiah passage is speaking in situationally descriptive, and not metaphysical, terms. The issues of context and literary style are very important in translating these passages. In Isaiah 45:7 the parallel poetic lines have clearly similar, but contrasting, sets of imagery. I'll try and lay the Hebrew groupings out in a way that the English eye can pick up on:

Verse 7a: He who forms/light
He who creates/darkness

Verse 7b: He who makes/well-being
He who creates/ calamity

The Hebrew is set in a very beautiful, and strikingly clear, poetic form here. If one were to try and render the final term as "evil" rather than "calamity" it would break the contrast. The term 'shalom' is speaking of a state of wholeness, peace, and prosperity. The term 'ra', _which has a wide range of meaning, only one of which is evil_, must be translated as calamity to give parallel contrast to the previous term. Calamity, distress, misery, and injury are all valid lexical options, and while have not read any of Clark's work on this term, I do not see any reason whatsoever that it must be translated as "evil" in an ethical/metaphysical sense.

So for all of that, the atheist is out of luck, the Christian is out of a conundrum, God still reigns in His unparadoxical moral holiness, and His majesty and glory are still made manifest in His control over the destructive forces of His creation.

BTW, with all of the threads that have recently been put out there regarding various translations I will put in my plug for the ESV on the Old Testament again; time after time I find that they are right on the mark - especially in the poetic sections of the prophets, Job, etc.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

*John Gill*



> 5d5b. Secondly, There are many evil things done in the world, in which the providence of God is concerned; and these are of two sorts, the evil of calamities, distress, and afflictions, and the evil of sin.
> 
> 5d5b1. The evils of calamities, &c. and these are either more public or more private.
> 
> 5d5b1a. More public; such are the calamities and distresses on nations and kingdoms, and bodies of men, and which are never without the providence of God; "I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things", in a providential way (Isa. 45:7). When peace obtains and continues in states and kingdoms, it is God that makes peace in their borders; this is a blessing of his providence; and the evil which is set in contrast with it, said to be of his creating, is war; and this, and all the calamities and distress that attend and follow it, are by the providence of God. In this sense are we to understand the prophet when he says, "Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6), he means any public calamity, affliction, and distress; even cities themselves come to destruction, and their memorial perishes with them: where is now Thebes with its hundred gates, and Babylon, with its broad walls, and the famous Persepolis, and Jerusalem the joy of the whole earth? it cannot be thought that these cities came to destruction without the concern of providence therein: yea, where are the famous monarchies which made such a figure in the world, the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, of which the latter only has a name, and that is all? the fall of these, according to divine prediction, has been accomplished by divine providence. Under this head may be observed the judgments of God in the world, as the sword, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, &c. When the sword is drawn, it is God that gives it a charge, and appoints it against such a state and kingdom; and it cannot be sheathed again, and be at rest and quiet, until he gives a counterorder in providence (Jer. 47:6,7). Famine is one of God’s arrows shot out of the bow of providence; wherever it is, it is of his calling for and sending. (Amos 4:6; Hag 1:11), and pestilence is another of his arrows, an arrow which flies by day and walks in darkness, and wastes at noonday by his order; concerning which he says, "I will send", or "I have sent" the pestilence among them (Jer. 29:17; Amos 4:10), and who has foretold there shall be earthquakes in divers places, as have been in our times as well as others, and cannot be thought to be without the providence of God (Matthew 24:7).



http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_3/book3_04.htm



> Isaiah 45:7
> 
> *Ver. 7. I form the light, and create darkness,....* Natural light, or that light which was produced at the first creation, and of which the sun is the fountain and source; or day which is light, and night which is darkness, the constant revolutions of which were formed, appointed, and are continued by the Lord, Ge 1:3, moral light, or the light of nature, the rational understanding in man; spiritual light, or the light of grace, by which things spiritual and supernatural are known; the light of joy and comfort from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and the light of eternal glory and happiness: this is all from God, of his producing and giving; and so darkness is his creature; that natural darkness which was upon the face of the earth at the beginning; what arises from the absence of the sun, or is occasioned by the eclipses of it, or very black clouds; or any extraordinary darkness, such as was in Egypt; or deprivation of sight, blindness in men; and, in a figurative sense, ignorance and darkness that follow upon sin; judicial blindness, God gives men up and leaves them to; temporal afflictions and distresses, and everlasting punishment, which is blackness of darkness:
> 
> ...



http://www.freegrace.net/gill/


----------



## reformedman (Nov 20, 2006)

I don't believe that God directly creates evil.

God creates evil by simply standing back and allowing us to do our part.

If you look at all of the examples in the bible. 
The heart of man is only evil continually.
You meant it for evil but God meant it for good.
Saul was left by God to himself.
etc...


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

reformedman said:


> I don't believe that God directly creates evil.
> 
> God creates evil by simply standing back and allowing us to do our part.
> 
> ...



See my comments here.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 20, 2006)

I read the post but I still don't agree with you if you assert that God authors evil. I read nothing that strengthens that argument.

I think it very simple and clearest to believe that we are the authors of sin. To say that God willed the death of Christ, is agreed. But to say that God induced sin in man to desire to kill Jesus or that God forced Judas to sell out Jesus; I would disagree. Just as prophesied, God sovereignly authored all to happen according to His will, but through His divine providence It legally happened. God wanted the salvation message given to sailors that were on the way to Tarshish, so He sends Jonah to Nineveh in order to accomplish this. He knows the heart of Jonah and knew the result Jonah would choose. He knew the heart of Joseph's brothers and providencially using the hearts of Joseph's brothers is the way God had for Joseph to become 2nd man to Egypt.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 21, 2006)

reformedman said:


> I read the post but I still don't agree with you if you assert that God authors evil. I read nothing that strengthens that argument.



I stated "I must agree with Hoeksema when he states "Surely, the Scriptures teach very plainly that the Lord, although he certainly is not the author of sin, nevertheless controls absolutely all the wicked deeds of sinful men." (Reformed Dogmatics, pp331)"

I was attempting to show the difficulty with saying that God is sovereign and then saying he did not decree this sin or that sin.



reformedman said:


> I think it very simple and clearest to believe that we are the authors of sin. To say that God willed the death of Christ, is agreed. But to say that God induced sin in man to desire to kill Jesus or that God forced Judas to sell out Jesus; I would disagree. Just as prophesied, God sovereignly authored all to happen according to His will, but through His divine providence It legally happened.



You say that "God sovereignly authored all to happen according to His will" and yet the crucifixion of Christ was his will and so he must have authored it...through those who committed it.


----------

