We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to Isaiah 45:7/Lamentations 3:37–38?

The Lord says,“I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe;
I the Lord do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7)

“Who can command and have it done
if the Lord has not ordained it?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that good and bad come?” (Lamentations 3:37-38)

Calvinists often argue that passages such as these attribute both good and evil to God’s sovereign hand (see also Amos 3:6). Some non-evangelical scholars argue that this conception of God represents an early stage of religious development where Yahweh was viewed as morally ambiguous. Only later, they argue, did Yahweh become “all holy” in the eyes of the Israelites and did evil get attributed to Satan and/or other free agents.

In my estimation, the conclusion of the non-evangelical scholars that God is morally ambiguous if he originates both good and evil is irrefutable. Calvinists escape this conclusion only by the mere assertion that it is not so. In their view good and evil originate from God “in such a way” that God remains all good. I frankly find it impossible to ascribe any meaning to the words in the previous sentence. What does it mean to say God is “all good” if it doesn’t rule out the possibility that he could do evil?

Fortunately, when read in context, neither text supports the view that God is morally ambiguous. The Isaiah passage is addressing the future deliverance of the children of Israel out of Babylon (Isa. 45:1–6). As a number of scholars have argued, the “light” and “darkness” of this passages refers to “liberation” and “captivity” (as in Isa. 9:1; Lam. 3:2). The “weal” and “woe,” or “prosperity” and “disaster,” refer to Yahweh’s plans to bless Israel and to curse Babylon. In the words of Terrence Fretheim, this language:

is not cosmic in orientation, but language typical in the prophets for specific (historical) divine judgments….God’s “creating” here is not ex nihilo, but action which gives specific shape to a situation of historical judgment.

Hence he concludes, “no claims are made that God is the all-determinative actor in this (or any other) situation.”*

Similarly, if read in context, Lamentations 3:37–38 does not suggest that Yahweh causes or ordains evil. Indeed, four verses earlier the prophet teaches us that God “does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone” (Lam. 3:33). This passage is not concerned with God’s cosmic sovereign activity; it is specifically addressing prophecy. Both “good and bad” prophecies (viz. prophecies about blessings and disaster) come “from the mouth of the Most High.” Jeremiah is saying this to confront people who only want to believe that prophecies about blessing are from God.

As much as it grieves the Lord (cf. vs. 31–33), he is prophesying judgment on Israel because “[t]he prisoners of the land [a]re crushed under foot” and “human rights are perverted” (v. 34). Far from suggesting that good and evil are part of God’s sovereign plan, the passage highlights God’s unequivocal holiness in coming against evil as something that he does not in any sense will!

Notes
*T. Fretheim, “Divine Dependence on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective,” Ex Auditu Vol. 13, 1997, 6–7. See also F. Lindstrom, God and the Origin of Evil: A Contextual Analysis of Alleged Monistic Evidence in the Old Testament, trans. F. H. Cryer, ConBOT 21 (Lund: Gleerup, 1983), 178–99. See also G. Boyd, God at War, 149f.

On Lamentations 3:37–38 and Amos 3:6, see Lindstrom, Origin of Evil, 199–236; See also G. Boyd, God at War (IVP, 1997), 150–52.

    Related Reading

    Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?

    Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…

    Non-Violence and Police Protection

     Scott Davidson via Compfight Question:  I am a President of a State University. As a frequent podcaster of your sermons and reader of your books, I’m seeking your advice on a matter. Because our campus is some distance from the police headquarters in our city, many within the State University are arguing that we should…

    What is the significance of Revelation 3:5?

    “If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life…” If God is only the God of certainties, it is not clear how he can honestly speak in conditional terms (“If you conquer…”) and it is not clear why he…

    Topics:

    How do you respond to Psalm 139:16?

    “In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.” Psalm 139 is a beautiful poetic expression of God’s personal moment-by-moment involvement in our lives. So intimate is his involvement that he knows our thoughts before we utter them (vs. 2–4). His loving presence surrounds…

    How do you respond to Proverbs 16:4?

    “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” Calvinists often cite this verse to support the conclusion that some people are created wicked for the expressed purpose of being sent to hell. Since Scripture teaches that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), that God loves all…

    How do you respond to Matthew 24:1–44?

    This is Jesus’ Mount of Olives discourse in which, according to many scholars, he prophesies concerning the conditions at the end of the age. “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place (vs. 6)…nation shall rise against nation…there will be famines and…

    Topics: