Help interpreting Isaiah 45:7

[Jay3gsm]

I would be sure that has been discussed before, but after extensive searching I’ve been unable to find anything to help.

The verse says:

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things

I understand that to interpret Sacred Scripture properly it needs to be taken in context. I’ve tried searching around the web for some help with this verse and the context in which it applies but I haven’t found anything useful.

Can anyone help? Is the word “create” the same as the word used for “create” back in Genesis in the original Hebrew? What is the context for the word “evil”? I’ve also seen it translated as woe and disaster in other Bible versions. Does anyone know the original word and a clearer translation of the word?

 

[Pete_1]

Hmm. Maybe, (please don’t take this as an official interpretation). That by creating Light God indirectly created Darkness, as darkness is the absence of light.

In addition by creating peace and free will he indirectly allowed for evil, as evil is the absence of good.

 

[Pax]

Here are some ideas in dealing with this verse and how it is to be understood.

First of all, the prophets almost always deal with primary causes and it is important that they get the message across that God is the primary cause for everything. There are secondary causes, but the prophets are not usually going to write with those in mind because God is in control, and He will accomplish his ends even by turning bad things into good things.

Many people misunderstand scripture and somehow think that God is the author of evil. God is not the author of evil for that would be against His nature. Nevertheless, certain things happen as a result of God’s actions that seem to cause evil, and one might then assume them to be the evil work of God. Things, however, really don’t work that way. A great example of this is found in the scriptural references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Listed below are the OT passages that refer to this event:

Exodus 7:13-17, Exodus 7:21-23, Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:19,
Exodus 8:32, Exodus 9:7, Exodus 9:12, Exodus 9:34-35, Exodus 10:1-2, Exodus 10:19-20, Exodus 10:27, Exodus 11:10, Exodus 14:8

The interesting thing these passages illustrate is that some of them say that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart while others say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. It’s clear that God is the primary cause and that Pharaoh is the secondary cause. Even though God is the primary cause, Pharaoh is the only one that is culpable. The reason for this is that the cause and the events were good and of God. The signs God gave were progressive and each sign was designed to have a positive impact which they did. The Jews received confidence, joy, and freedom by way of the signs. If Pharaoh had only been willing to receive the first signs he would not have suffered later consequences. Even some of his own people saw the signs as coming from the “One True God” and were converted. Unlike them, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.

The Church historian Origen had a great way of describing this hardening of the heart versus the softening of the heart. He said that grace was like sunlight. When the sunlight falls upon wet clay it hardens and cracks; but when the sunlight falls upon wax it softens.

If we understand all of this by way of Pharaoh’s experience and Origen’s analogy we can come to grips with what is meant in Isaiah 45:7 and other passages of scripture that are written in a similar vein.

Beyond that, there may be instances where it seems God is acting as the primary cause in a destructive action. God has exclusive rights to His creation, and that which God does is most often beyond our comprehension and is outside of our understanding of good and evil because His wisdom and exclusive rights to His creation exceed our feeble understanding.

I hope this helps.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would be sure that has been discussed before, but after extensive searching I’ve been unable to find anything to help.

The verse says:

I understand that to interpret Sacred Scripture properly it needs to be taken in context. I’ve tried searching around the web for some help with this verse and the context in which it applies but I haven’t found anything useful.

Can anyone help? Is the word “create” the same as the word used for “create” back in Genesis in the original Hebrew? What is the context for the word “evil”? I’ve also seen it translated as woe and disaster in other Bible versions. Does anyone know the original word and a clearer translation of the word?

This is a very valuable verse, because it tells us that even evil is under God’s control. The context is of the very first importance, because it is itself part of a section of Second Isaiah which is devoted to making clear that there is one God, & only one, & that this only God is the God Who chose Israel for His own.​

This is not a lecture on something abstract & of no relevance to anyone - it is part of a polemic against false gods (specifically those of Babylon), and a proclamation that all that has happened to the people of Judah - including the Exile - is well within God’s purposes for them. And this “all” includes evil. Which is very odd, as evil is of its very nature chaotic & meaningless - which only goes to show how important this verse is: even total meaninglessness (most especially the meaninglessness that is sin) cannot prevail against God - the universe of the Prophets is not a dualistic universe: God alone is its Lord; the Bible is a powerful help against a great many errors even, or especially, in our philosophies.

The word “create” is significant. Creation in the Ancient Near East was thought of as being by speech, parentage, or making; & there is a Babylonian text about the demoness Lamashtu, who is described as the daughter of Anu, the supreme god. Demons were gods of low rank compared to the “great gods”, but they were still divine beings. Lamashtu is one of the relatively few demons who are malign by nature. In contrast to those ideas, the God of Israel is alone, unique - & is unique as Creator; the religion of Israel leaves room for God to create by His word (as in Genesis 1) - but it leaves no room for creation by procreation. So His position in regard to evil is essentially different from that of all gods in a polytheistic religion; & that is part of the meaning of the verse.

To understand what God can do with evil, we have to wait until the Crucifixion - because that shows us God undergoing evil (which is wholly alien to Him - see Habakkuk 1.13), yet bringing good out of it. Another example of the dominion of God over evil is shown in Revelation chapter 19 - the entire book is about His Lordship over all history; which is why Romans 8.29 with the following verses is so valuable.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I don’t know if this will help but…

Haydock’s Catholic commentary on this verse says:
Ver. 7. Create evil, &c. The evils of affliction and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (Challoner) — I afflict and comfort my people.
A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons, in 1953, on page 564, says:
7. There may be a refutation here of the Persian belief in two principles, one of light and good, the other of darkness and evil.

 

[Pax]

This is a very valuable verse, because it tells us that even evil is under God’s control. The context is of the very first importance, because it is itself part of a section of Second Isaiah which is devoted to making clear that there is one God, & only one, & that this only God is the God Who chose Israel for His own.​

This is not a lecture on something abstract & of no relevance to anyone - it is part of a polemic against false gods (specifically those of Babylon), and a proclamation that all that has happened to the people of Judah - including the Exile - is well within God’s purposes for them. And this “all” includes evil. Which is very odd, as evil is of its very nature chaotic & meaningless - which only goes to show how important this verse is: even total meaninglessness (most especially the meaninglessness that is sin) cannot prevail against God - the universe of the Prophets is not a dualistic universe: God alone is its Lord; the Bible is a powerful help against a great many errors even, or especially, in our philosophies.

The word “create” is significant. Creation in the Ancient Near East was thought of as being by speech, parentage, or making; & there is a Babylonian text about the demoness Lamashtu, who is described as the daughter of Anu, the supreme god. Demons were gods of low rank compared to the “great gods”, but they were still divine beings. Lamashtu is one of the relatively few demons who are malign by nature. In contrast to those ideas, the God of Israel is alone, unique - & is unique as Creator; the religion of Israel leaves room for God to create by His word (as in Genesis 1) - but it leaves no room for creation by procreation. So His position in regard to evil is essentially different from that of all gods in a polytheistic religion; & that is part of the meaning of the verse.

To understand what God can do with evil, we have to wait until the Crucifixion - because that shows us God undergoing evil (which is wholly alien to Him - see Habakkuk 1.13), yet bringing good out of it. Another example of the dominion of God over evil is shown in Revelation chapter 19 - the entire book is about His Lordship over all history; which is why Romans 8.29 with the following verses is so valuable.

I don’t know if this will help but…

Haydock’s Catholic commentary on this verse says:
Ver. 7. Create evil, &c. The evils of affliction and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (Challoner) — I afflict and comfort my people.
A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons, in 1953, on page 564, says:
7. There may be a refutation here of the Persian belief in two principles, one of light and good, the other of darkness and evil.

.

The point about dualism is a very good one.

 

[banjo]

“Origen, quite early on, gave this explanation: ‘Evil, in the absolute sense of the word, was not created by God …]. If we speak of evil in a loose sense, meaning physical and natural evils, then we can say that God created it in order to convert men by their suffering. What is strange about this teaching? We refer to the punishments meted out by parents and teachers, and even the prescriptions and operations carried out by doctors and surgeons, as evils and sufferings, without blaming or condemning them. And that is how we should read the verse: I form light and create darkness, I make weal and woe (Is 45:7)’ (Contra Celsum, 6, 55-56).” **The Navarre Bible **

 

[Jay3gsm]

Some really helpful answers, thanks.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I would be sure that has been discussed before, but after extensive searching I’ve been unable to find anything to help.

The verse says:

I understand that to interpret Sacred Scripture properly it needs to be taken in context. I’ve tried searching around the web for some help with this verse and the context in which it applies but I haven’t found anything useful.

Can anyone help? Is the word “create” the same as the word used for “create” back in Genesis in the original Hebrew? What is the context for the word “evil”? I’ve also seen it translated as woe and disaster in other Bible versions. Does anyone know the original word and a clearer translation of the word?

Yes, the words create and make are the same ones used in Genesis 1 creation account.

cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=01254

cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=06213

The key to the text is what darkness, peace, light and evil mean.

Evil for example refers to natural diasters in this context
cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=07451&version=KJV

No Jewish Rabbi or Scholar that I know of has ever understood this passage to mean that God is the creator of wickedness or wrong doing. All view evil as related to God’s judgement like for example bringing another nation against his people, or sending a plague on Egypt as another example of how this word is understood in context.