The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

Theology Biblical Theology
#246

Allow me to repost a pertinent post:

"Thus says the LORD of hosts: “I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (I Samuel 15:2-3, spoken by Samuel to King Saul)

If you read the rest of the chapter, you will see that Saul fulfilled this command, except that he spared some animals and the Amalekite king, Agag. Saul “utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword” (verse 8). Shortly thereafter, the prophet Samuel himself killed Agag (verse 33).

So I guess there were no more Amalekites left in the world after Saul and Samuel finished their job, right?

Wrong.

About 15 to 20 years later (according to some timelines I consulted), David went to war with the Amalekites (as recounted in I Samuel 30). David defeated them, and of the Amalekites “not a man escaped, except four hundred young men who rode on camels and fled” (verse 17).

Umm…

How can we go from ZERO Amalekites to well over 400 Amalekites in two decades or less? I know where Amalekite babies come from, and so do you. Amalekite babies require Amalekite parents! But there weren’t any Amalekites at all, because they were all slain by Saul and Samuel, right?

Wrong.

We have here biblical proof that the language which, when literally understood, sounds like genocide, means anything but. Whatever Saul did, he left enough Amalekites alive that less than 20 years later 400 of them ran away from David.

We have here an example of an idiom. When God told the Israelites to kill all the men, women, and children, nobody at the time interpreted it literally. (Similarly, I’ve heard many Americans talk about “bombing such-and-so back to the Stone Age”, though nobody understands that literally.)

So next time someone is troubled about God commanding genocide in the Old Testament, you can assure him that God never did any such thing. He merely used language which has been ignorantly interpreted in a literal manner not intended. Can you imagine what people speaking a language yet unborn 3,000 years from now are going to make of our American documents that speak of “bombing X back to the Stone Age”? They’ll make a hash of it, even as we have of God’s supposedly genocidal commands.

It’s ridiculous. We grossly distort the Bible, then blame God for commanding something (i. e., genocide) that He never commanded.

link: Don't worry. The Amalekites are fine.

#247

Who’s saying that God’s intervention WOULD be coercion? Not Richard Murray and not I. I have not said that God cannot save a believer from harm regardless of Steve Gregg’s false accusation that I have. I was mistaken, however, in saying in the above post and also on the other forum that Richard Murray’s explanation solves the problem of evil. I should have said “partially solves the problem of evil.”

Murray has strongly affirmed that God is completely good, that in Him is not darkness at all, that He does not violate people in any way, does not coerce them, does not kill them, etc. Here is how Murray explains why it is written in the Old Testament that He did such evil things:

#248
#249

qaz wrote:
I wonder if Murray has a theory on the verses that say God commanded Israel to slaughter children and infants. I have a hard time accepting the idea that God actually did, but I’ve yet to read a compelling theory that explains how these verses ended up in the Bible if God didn’t in fact command these slaughters.

In his book “Don’t blame God” John Schoenheit gives examples of how the OT writers used certain literary devices like “metonymy.” The White House decided that dogs s/b granted the right to vote! Obviously the White House is a building but this method of substituting one noun for another is a common device OT writers used in relation to God and Satan according to this book,

#250

Awesome sauce??? I’ve never heard of that expression before, but I like it, Steve!! :smiley:

LLC, It’s a teenage girl expression but if the shoe fits i’ll wear it!

#251

Steve7150 wrote:
If a plane flying over the ocean suddenly has all of it’s engines stall and it hurdles toward the ocean, how would God’s intervention to save everyone be coercion?

Who’s saying that God’s intervention WOULD be coercion? Not Richard Murray and not I. I have not said that God cannot save a believer from harm regardless of Steve Gregg’s false accusation that I have. I was mistaken, however, in saying in the above post and also on the other forum that Richard Murray’s explanation solves the problem of evil. I should have said “partially solves the problem of evil.”

OK Paidion so why then wouldn’t God intervene and save the folks on the plane? I don’t see any free will issue, do you?

#253

It was not meant to support the non-violent God hypothesis (unless possibly indirectly). It was meant to support the progressive revelation of God’s character and purpose. The earlier Hebrew view was that Satan was an agent of God who couldn’t act without God’s permission, and so when Satan acted violently, it was considered tantamount to God acting violently. But many years later when 1 Chronicles was written, and right through to New Testament times, Satan was considered to act independently and in opposition to God.

So in earlier Hebrew times, when Satan brought about an evil, it was said that God brought it about, since it was believed to amount to the same thing since God “allowed” Satan to do it, supposedly for a higher purpose. But Richard Murray believes that God doesn’t “allow” evil in any sense of the word. The most effective way to understand Murray’s position is to read his book.

#254

One more thing to ponder concerning the Tree of Life. If Jehovah knew of their turning as a fact before He created them, then the creation of this tree is a superfluous act of creation at best, and a deliberately misleading act at worst, because, for His knowing as a fact of their turning, He would also know that He would have to ban them from eating its fruits! So, why create it in the first place, unless He always intended for them to have access to it? This idea then makes the creation of this tree an act of optimism that their trust in Him would prevail! Thus, it is indicated that He could not have fore-known their turning when He created them, exactly because He created this tree alongside the other one.

Eli,
Putting aside a couple of references that Jesus sacrifice was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world and granting that “Open Theism” is true i find it hard to believe God had no idea what would happen. Additionally why not just forgive them, why curse Eve, why curse the ground with thorns and thistles, why appoint Adam as our representative and in effect punish us for Adam’s transgression? We are told we need to be more then conquerors, we need to be overcomers, we need to put on the full armour of God. So it sounds to me like we sorta want Heaven on earth right now but God himself has decided we need to develop our spiritual muscles by overcoming evil. To overcome evil it has to exist in this age. Not a popular message but to me it seems to line up with reality and with scripture better then any other idea.

#255

Just came across this sentence in Richard Murray’s book:

.

Here are my thoughts. I believe God did intend them to eventually eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—but not while they were immature. That is the reason He forbade it. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with knowing the difference between good and evil. In fact the writer to the Hebrews indicates that it’s a sign of maturity:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:14 ESV)

God God never forbade them from eating from the Tree of Life, but there is no evidence that they ever did so. My thought is that God wanted them to mature through receiving life from that Tree.

But the Serpent wanted them to do it the other way around; eat right away from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It’s not always with bad things with which Satan tempts people, but He often tempts them to use good things in the wrong way—money, sex, food, etc.They acted according to the Serpent’s suggestion and ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil , but were not mature enough to handle that knowledge. They were mature physically, but not mentally and emotionally. So God drove them out of the Garden, and prevented them from returning so that they would not eat from the Tree of Life and perpetuate their lives in their fallen condition.

#256

So God drove them out of the Garden, and prevented them from returning so that they would not eat from the Tree of Life and perpetuate their lives in their fallen condition.

Well i have asked before but why couldn’t God simply forgive them, explain to them the error of their ways, warn them about Satan and press the reset button and start over? Also why do we pay for Adam’s transgression when we were not involved?

#257

Do you think Genesis was written to answer all those question? At the time it was ‘written’ - which you understand was looong after the tradition had been orally passed down - the story used other sources from older pagan myths, and changed them to display the vast difference between Yahweh and the multitude of other and older ‘gods’ and heroes.

I think we ask too much out of a few chapters that were not intended to address our 21st century concerns.
Ach, just $.02

#258

Do you think Genesis was written to answer all those question?

No , but i think people can form questions and have thoughts and opinions about it. Plus other parts of the bible reference it so it kinda forms a thread going all the way to Revelation! (Paradise lost & paradise restored).

#259

Never mind.

#260

You are right about the relationship between the Genesis account and us today. I’m with you there. :smiley:

#261

In my view, The Genesis story is the very beginning, :open_mouth: of a story that ends in Revelation. The story of a people called Israel, that all of us are either part of or are brought into in one way or another.

#262

In what sense to we pay? Do you refer to the fact that death has been passed on to all of humanity?

If so, I don’t think that fact is a matter of “paying” but a matter of genetics.

#263

I agree with all this.

#264

I agree and as I understand it… it is this sense or thought of discernment in the judicial sense that lay behind the command not to partake thereof. I don’t see this as so much a moral issue as it was an integrity issue, i.e., could/would Adam be trusted to obey the command given? Adam was not in a place, at that time, maturity-wise to be determining, judging or differentiating on matters of “good and evil” — that was God’s prerogative, power, position and place to fill, not Adam’s — at least not at that time.

On the matter of… ‘does God create, commit and allow evil’? I say unequivocally, YES He can… albeit not of the sinister sinful sense which invariably is what so many think “evil” is said to be. That understanding when applied carte blanch leads to all manner of prevalent gymnastics to have God NOT doing “evil”, where in fact certain texts plainly say otherwise.

IF we understand “evil” in terms of “calamity” and NOT some sentient malevolent entity then it is clear in Scripture God indeed DID bring “calamity” i.e., evil or disastrous outcomes on certain ones… usually in terms of punishment on His disobedient children OR on those who unjustly troubled them.

The two most common words rendered “evil” across the Greek texts are… <πονηρός> ponēros and <κακός> kakos — both are mostly rendered “evil” / “wicked” / “calamity”. Both are used in the same sense in this prophecy about Jesus…

In the Genesis account of “good and evil” the word used is <πονηρός> ponēros. However in Isa 45:7 it is <κακός> kakos…

This cannot be white-washed to mean something other than an evil outcome, i.e., a “calamity” — which indeed is the word many modern translations use here for <κακός> kakos. But either way as it says… “I the Lord do all these things.”

#265

Paidion, I have to disagree. When God says not do something, He means don’t do it. We are not to steal, cheat, lie, murder, worship other gods, hate our brothers, etc. etc. I can’t think of anything that God commands us not to do that we can then do later on after we mature. In fact, when we become mature, we know better than to do what He tells us not to.

#266

Question… how should Christians make conclusions about truth and what is true? If a Biblical statement does not square with my personal rules or reasons or experience then what options do we have? There are many comments in this post accepting or rejecting various propositions. However, what are your ground rules for determining truth? The subject of God’s sovereignty over all things, including evil, has been debated in this forum over and over. Yet how are we to gain ground in actually persuading one another and growing in unity?

Options when Biblical statements appear to conflict with my personal reason, judgment, and experience

  1. We could question whether the Biblical statement is truly God’s revealed word or an injection, such as KJV 1 John 5:7.

  2. We could simply acknowledge that God’s ways are higher than our ways and subject to Biblical statements over our own reason.

  3. We could patiently wait for more understanding and experience without making premature conclusions.

  4. We could ask, is there obvious one case where God or His ways are beyond our understanding, if there is one, then there could be more.

  5. We could ask is it safer to trust my own judgment of matters or trust God’s word against my own judgment.

  6. We could work toward interpretations that honor the whole of Scripture yet without bending or offending Scripture.

  7. More ideas…?

It may be that agreement is not possible if we do not agree on the basic ground rules of how to determine what is true.