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 Exodus 21:12–13?
“Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee.”
Compatibilists sometimes argue that this passage shows that fatal accidents are acts of God. The Hebrew does not require this, however. It may simply mean that God allows the acts to happen. Hence the NIV translates the phrase, “God lets this happen.”
It’s helpful to remember that throughout the Old Testament God was laying the foundation for subsequent revelation. The centerpiece of this foundation was monotheism. Against the polytheistic views of Israel’s neighbors, God consistently emphasized that he alone is Creator and that he alone is ultimately in control of the whole world. He has no rivals.
Given this emphasis, Hebrew authors sometimes describe events or states as coming from the Creator, though they do not mean by this that the events or states are directly caused by God. Free agents and chance influence how things transpire (Eccl. 9:11), but they can only have the domain of influence Yahweh allots them. We can thus understand how an Old Testament author could contrast an intentional murder with a fatal accident that “God lets…happen.”
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will, Responding to Objections
Verse: Exodus 21
Related Reading
What is the significance of Jeremiah 19:5?
The Lord says that Israel has “gone on building the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind.” Here, as elsewhere, (7:31, 32:35), the Lord expresses disappointment, if not shock, over Israel’s idolatry. The…
Do you believe God is pure actuality?
The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality. I think…
What is the significance of Deuteronomy 9:13–14, 18–20, 25?
The Lord tells Moses “Let me alone that I may destroy them [the Israelites] and blot out their name from under heaven…” (vs. 14). Moses later says to the Israelites, “the Lord intended to destroy you” (vs. 25). Moses interceded for forty days and then tells the Israelites, “the Lord listened to me…” (vs. 19).…
Revelation 17:8 refers to people whose names haven’t been written in “the book of life from the creation of the world.” Doesn’t this conflict with open theism?
As in Revelation 13:8, the clause “from the foundation” (apo kataboleis) need not mean “from before the foundation” but simply “from the foundation” (= since the foundation). It’s not that names either were or were not written in the “book of life” before they were ever born. Rather, throughout history, in response to the choices…
What is the significance of Acts 27:10-44?
This is the passage deal with Paul’s ill-fated voyage to Italy as a prisoner. The ship ran into very bad weather and Paul announced, “Men, I can see that our voyage is going to be disastrous and bring great loss to ship and cargo, and to our own lives also” (vs. 10). As he reminded…
What is the significance of Jeremiah 32:35?
As in Jeremiah 19:5, the Lord expresses his dismay over Israel’s paganism by saying they did this “though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination.” If this abomination was eternally foreknown to God, it’s impossible to attribute any clear meaning to his confession that this…