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
Doesn’t Psalm 139:16 refute the open view of the future?
One of the passages most frequently cited in attempts to refute the open view of the future is Psalm 139:16. Here David says that God viewed him while he was being formed in the womb (vs. 15) and then adds: “[Y]our eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in…
What do you think of “confrontational evangelism”?
Question: In The Myth of a Christian Nation, you emphasize our need to sacrificially serve others. But you didn’t emphasize our need to “preach the Gospel to every living creature.” I’ve been intrigued by the movement known as “confrontational evangelism,” associated with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They stress the need to get people to…
Answering an Objection to a Cross-Centered Approach to Scripture
Through Greg’s Facebook and Twitter, we’ve been getting some great feedback and questions regarding his cross-centered approach to Scripture. Several have voiced questions similar to the reader’s (below), so we thought it would be helpful to post Greg’s answer here on his blog.
Is the open view the only view that is compatible with the Incarnation?
Question: You have said that the Open view of God is the only view that squares with the Incarnation and the only view that truly exalts God’s greatness. On what basis do you say this? Answer: The revelation of God in the Incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness and ability to change that…
How do you respond to Genesis 25:23?
The Lord told Rebekah, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.” (cf. Rom. 9:12–16) Old Testament scholars agree that the author (and later, Paul in Romans 9) has the descendants of Jacob and…
Why do you have such a pessimistic view of government?
Question: I’m a Christian and serve as a servant in government and I find your book The Myth of a Christian Nation, as well as some of your sermons on Christians and politics, highly offensive. I find that while governments sometimes harm people, they also do a lot of good. The American government in particular…