God - author of good and evil (Creator, Moses, Earth)

[Victor]

The following is a dialogue that caught my attention. Burgener is an ex-Christian and now atheist. Armstrong is an ex-protestant and now catholic theologian. The dialogue specifically compares 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. Please take the time to read the exchange and let me know your thoughts.


.................................................. .................................................. ...

Burgener:
The watershed moment for me was a comparative analysis of 2 Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21, which both record the event of David taking a census and thus bringing a devasting pestilence on the people of Israel. The book of Samuel was written during the Babylonian captivity. The books of Chronicles were written later during the Persian period prior to the rebuilding of the Temple. God's inspiration is claimed by I Timothy 3:16 to be behind both accounts. However, there is a major change between the two accounts.

In the Samuel account, it is God who incites David to do evil by calling for a census as an excuse to punish him. David later realizes that he has sinned in performing the census. But it was God who incited David to commit this sin in the first place. However, one must remember that Israel at the time of writing this document had no concept of a devil. Good and evil were seen at that time as proceeding from God. Thus one is struck by the account in I Chronicles which attribution the evil incitation of a census to Satan.

Why the change? Here one must remember that at this point that Israelite theology had been exposed and influenced by the Persian religion, Zoroasterianism and had incorporated the idea of a satan who opposed the goodness of God. The authors of the Chroncles wanted to clear the God of the barbarous charge that he was directly responsible for David sinning and then punishing him for a sin which he caused him to commit. Thus they interjected the Persian idea of divine adversary which was probably known to their reader to avoid the contradiction presented in II Samuel.

This change is perfectly understandable for the perspective of historical research but presents a nearly insurmountable peak to be climbed by those who want to uphold the verbal inspiration of both of these passages. Can any amount of theological gyrations cogently overcome this problem and maintain divine inspiration with a straight face?

This was a watershed moment which set face down the course toward atheism.

[Victor]

Armstrong:
There is no necessary contradiction between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, and this holds even if there was development of theology.

Ancient Israel was, as you know, a pre-philosophical society. It is very complex today, in philosophy, to work out the relationship of God's sovereignty and human freedom and evil. Much more so back then.

Originally, God was thought of as the author of both good and evil, as part and parcel of His sovereignty. To this day, Calvinism approximates that view.

Later, as reflection developed, the notion of God allowing free will, which is the origin of the evil, came to be better grasped.

In any event, the God-Satan relationship vis-a-vis who "caused" sin is not a biblical contradiction as you claim, because it is a common motif in Scripture that both God and Satan can be involved in the same act or sin, for different purposes: God for good and Satan for evil.

The notion of secondary causation of sin and God's use of it for good is actually present as far back as Genesis. After Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery and at length he became second to Pharaoh in Egypt, Joseph reflects on the higher purposes involved:
Genesis 45:4-8 (RSV):
4: So Joseph said to his brothers, "Come near to me, I pray you." And they came near. And he said, "I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. 5: And now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life. 6: For the famine has been in the land these two years; and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. 7: And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors.
8: So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.

This is a rather sophisticated understanding of God's providence, and how He can turn evil intents into a good outcome, and include the same in His providence. A more concise statement of the same notion occurs in Genesis 50:20:
Genesis 50:20 (RSV):
As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today

This is a remarkably advanced grasp of complex theology for that early time, hardly different in essence from the developed NT thought of:
Romans 8:28:
We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

So this is no necessary contradiction at all. It is simply two different ways of describing the same thing (a rather common biblical motif). If God allows Satan to be involved, that is His permissive will; not His perfect will. But God can turn around Satan's evil designs for His own purposes.

We find the same dynamic in the book of Job (which is usually considered of a later date than Samuel and Chronicles). God let Job be in Satan's power (Job 1:12), but it was for His higher purpose. When the text speaks of "the evil that the Lord had brought upon him" (42:11), it is in this sense: He permitted Satan to do his thing, which was for a bad purpose, but God had a good purpose in mind.

Now, if your contention is correct, that Hebrew thought had evolved from a simple belief that God was beyond good and evil to a dualistic understanding, whereby Satan did the bad stuff (hence a supposed contradiction), then you have to explain why the same advanced concept was already seen in Genesis, among the patriarchs (some 600-800 years before David).

And you have to explain why it again appears in Job, probably written after the time of David. This isn't contradiction (one belief earlier, and another contradictory one later); it is simply further understanding of the nature of God and how He is sovereign.

[jewscout]

I have to say that, tho i see the points being made by both authors, i personally disagree w/ both.
The main reason is that i don't believe in a dualist vision of the Divine. There is G-d, and that's it.

as to the first author, i think from a historical standpoint he makes a good arguement, however i don't think, theologically, that embodying evil in the form of satan necessarily means that it's not inspired by G-d. If satan works for G-d and takes orders from G-d then ultimately it's from G-d.

the other author seems to push a dualist thought, which i don't believe. If there is just one creative force in the universe, G-d, then satan has to be His creation and tool.

i think they make good arguements, but i just disagree. I guess i'm coming from a different viewpoint.
G-d created all things, including evil.
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am HaShem, that doeth all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 JPS 1917)

[Ronald]

Yes God did create evil, but it would have been known only by God had man chosen to be obedient and then eat from the tree of life and become eternal from the beginning.

But alas, God made provisions for what he knew would happen!

A time will come when God will say "It is Good." "Behold it is very Good." And he will sanctify it again and make it holy.

Shalom

[Victor]

*bump*

[writer]

1 Samuel was written during the Babylonian captivity.
No it wasn't. 2 Sam was written by Nathan and Gad, the 11th cent b.C.

God's inspiration is claimed by I Timothy 3:16
2 Tim

In the Samuel account, it is God who incites David to do evil by calling for a census as an excuse to punish him
To the contrary, in light of 1 Chron 21:1, the "he" in 2 Sam 24:1 refers to Satan, not God

David later realizes that he has sinned in performing the census. But it was God who incited David to commit this sin in the first place.
To the contrary, the Bible is one book, and Samuel and Chronicles don't contradict. It was Satan who incited David to commit this sin in the first place. Although God allowed him

However, one must remember that Israel at the time of writing this document had no concept of a devil.
To the contrary: the oldest Hebrew Scriptures, Job and Genesis, not only have the concept of God's adversary, they reference him (Job 1-2; Gen 3)

Good and evil were seen at that time as proceeding from God.
To the contrary: Moses saw them as proceeding from Satan, in independence from God (Gen 2:9, 17)

Thus one is struck by the account in I Chronicles which attribution the evil incitation of a census to Satan.
i'm struck by Mr Burgener's ignorance and agenda

Why the change?
In the light of the much older books of Genesis and Job, especially specifying the identical theme: of God permitting (and even inciting, in Job) His adversary to act against God and God's own; which theme remains also in the New Testament:
Mr Burgener's deceived by Satan, or mistaken, or has his own Satan-induced agenda,
to suggest there is a "change"

Here one must remember that at this point that Israelite theology had been exposed and influenced by the Persian religion, Zoroasterianism and had incorporated the idea of a satan who opposed the goodness of God.
One'd be better served to remember that Job, Genesis, Israel, and Samuel, not to mention Adam, Eve, the garden, Moses, and Satan, the former archangel, preceded Zoroaster

The authors of the Chroncles wanted to clear the God of the barbarous charge that he was directly responsible for David sinning and then punishing him for a sin which he caused him to commit.
Mebbe. In any case, neither do Samuel and Chronicles contradict, nor are they not inspired by the same loving Creator

Thus they interjected the Persian idea of divine adversary which was probably known to their reader to avoid the contradiction presented in II Samuel.
Mystery (esp to Mr B) is one thing. Contradiction's another

This change is perfectly understandable for the perspective of historical research but presents a nearly insurmountable peak to be climbed by those who want to uphold the verbal inspiration of both of these passages.
To the contrary: there's neither any change, nor does 2 Sam 24:1 write "Jehovah moved David against Israel." It uses the pronoun (made clear in this case by the equally divinely-inspired 1 Chron 21:1) "he."
Nor'z Mr B's mention of "historical research" inspiring as much confidence as if he had been familiar with either the dates or contents of Job, Genesis, 2 Samuel, or 1 Tim 3:16

Can any amount of theological gyrations cogently overcome this problem and maintain divine inspiration with a straight face?
i acknowledge that 2 Sam 24:1 looks as if Jehovah must be the antecedent for "he."
But given that His Scriptures have one theme, and one common claim (2 Tim 3:16; Jn 10:35; etc); and thus are not "separate," 1 Chron 21:1 explicitly interprets and clarifies 2 Sam 24:1. I think a better question would be how exactly could folks read Mr Burgener's comment's self-deceit or inaccuracies w/ a straight face?

[writer]

2 There is no necessary contradiction between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, and this holds even if there was development of theology.
This's accurate

Ancient Israel was, as you know, a pre-philosophical society.
This's inaccurate, unless by "phiolosophical" Mr Armstrong means something other than the ordinary meaning

It is very complex today, in philosophy, to work out the relationship of God's sovereignty and human freedom
Itz a mystery. Then 'n now

Originally, God was thought of as the author of both good and evil, as part and parcel of His sovereignty.
By who?

To this day, Calvinism approximates that view.
i'm guessin that's probably a misrepresentation by Mr Armstrong

Later, as reflection developed, the notion of God allowing free will, which is the origin of the evil, came to be better grasped.
"free will" isn't the origin of evil. Satan is (Jn 8:44). This's also quite mysterious to me. Nor is free will something only later. Since God created man in His image in His creation (Gen 1:26-27) and deliberately placed him before the 2 (main) trees (2:9-10) and explicitly told him "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat" (16), even using the word "free"

In any event, the God-Satan relationship vis-a-vis who "caused" sin is not a biblical contradiction as you claim, because it is a common motif in Scripture that both God and Satan can be involved in the same act or sin, for different purposes: God for good and Satan for evil.
This's accurate

The notion of secondary causation of sin and God's use of it for good is actually present as far back as Genesis. After Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery and at length he became second to Pharaoh in Egypt, Joseph reflects on the higher purposes involved: Genesis 45:4-8
This's good

This is a rather sophisticated understanding of God's providence, and how He can turn evil intents into a good outcome, and include the same in His providence. A more concise statement of the same notion occurs in Genesis 50:20:
Genesis 50:20 (RSV):
As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today
This's fair, and accurate; and the verse is wonderful. Praise the Lord

This is a remarkably advanced grasp of complex theology
God's not complex theology. That sounds more like the tree of knowledge.
God's a person

for that early time, hardly different in essence from the developed NT thought of:
Romans 8:28:
We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
Exactly, and wonderful. And showing the identical theme of this common, divinely-inspired book, collection, spanning about 2000 b.C. (Job) to a.D. 100 (John)

God can turn around Satan's evil designs for His own purposes.
hallelujah

Job (which is usually considered of a later date than Samuel and Chronicles)...Job, probably written after the time of David
Job was probably written way before the time of David. i consider Job, based on its content and historicity about a millenium earlier than Samuel, and around a millenium and a half before Chronicles

God let Job be in Satan's power (Job 1:12), but it was for His higher purpose. When the text speaks of "the evil that the Lord had brought upon him" (42:11), it is in this sense: He permitted Satan to do his thing, which was for a bad purpose, but God had a good purpose in mind.
amen

...then you have to explain why the same advanced concept was already seen in Genesis, among the patriarchs (some 600-800 years before David).
Something which either apparently never crossed Mr B's mind, or he's incapable of yet

This isn't contradiction...it is simpl[e]
excellent point.
Thanx

[d.]

nietzsche : author of 'beyond good and evil'.

[natey]

Originally Posted by Ronald

Yes God did create evil, but it would have been known only by God had man chosen to be obedient and then eat from the tree of life and become eternal from the beginning.

But alas, God made provisions for what he knew would happen!

A time will come when God will say "It is Good." "Behold it is very Good." And he will sanctify it again and make it holy.

Shalom

On the contrary God did not create evil. How could a perfect being create evil? Alas, God created the ability for Adam and Eve to choose and thus they brought evil into the world. Evil was not created by God, only the possibility for it was.