This is just more wriggling on the hook. Allowing an untruth is morally the same as lying.
I don't see this interpretation as "wiggling on the hook". It may be dealing with a few difficult passages. I don't mind that because I am not naive to assume the subject matter about God's nature and ways will always be easy to understand.
That passages about divine allowance of deception overtaking the truth haters reveals judgment. The truth came to them and they repeatedly rejected it. Both instances of them being deceived floow long periods in which God repeatedly try to reach them with truth.
Furthermore the Bible squarely deals with the paradox of God's permissive will in one entire book, the book of
Job. There Satan accuses God of protecting Job. God gives Satan limited permission to attack first Job's possessions and than Job's physical body. Job however throughout the entire book does not relent in recognizing that it is ultimately God's assault upon him.
Not only does inspiration provide us one whole book to ponder this but a number of times in
First Samuel we are told of
"an evil spirit from the Jehovah" (1 Sam. 16:14,23;18:10;19:9) that came upon the reprobate King Saul.
These repetitions seemed aim at making sure the reader is adoubly affirmed about what is being said. It is like
"You heard me ... and evil spirit from Jehovah". This frank discloser impresses me that the word of God is not running from the irony but faithfully communicating that judgment from God can have such twist.
Interestingly enough, the relief from this
"evil spirit from the Lord" is completely reverse when Saul goes to be among the prophets and the Spirit of God comes upon him restoring the depressed King to the grace of God
(1 Samuel 19:19-24). King Saul should probably have forgotten his jealous ambitions and remained there with the prophets.
The judgment of an evil spirit coming upon Saul or the lying spirit causing the prophets to mislead rebellious king Ahab is alluded to in this article:
At least three clarifications are worthy of consideration. First, the Bible frequently refers to acts of deserved punishment that God has inflicted upon people throughout history. For example, He brought a global deluge against the Earth’s population (Genesis 6-9) due to rampant human wickedness and depravity (6:5). God did not act inappropriately in doing so, not only because the people deserved nothing less, but also because He repeatedly warned the people of impending disaster, and was longsuffering in giving them ample opportunity to repent (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:9). The Bible provides instance after instance where evil people received their just desserts. God is not to be blamed nor deemed unjust for levying deserved punishment for sin, even as honest, impartial judges in America today are not culpable when they mete out just penalties for criminal behavior. Retribution upon flagrant, ongoing, impenitent lawlessness is not only right and appropriate; it is absolutely indispensable and necessary (see Miller, 2002).
In this case, Saul was afflicted with an evil spirit as a punishment for his insistent defiance of God’s will. He had committed flagrant violation of God’s commands on two previous occasions (1 Samuel 13:13-14; 15:11,19). His persistence in this lifelong pattern of disobedient behavior certainly deserved direct punitive response from God (e.g., 31:4). As Keil and Delitzsch maintained: This demon is called ‘an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah,’ because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment (1976, 2:170). John W. Haley added: And he has a punitive purpose in granting this permission. He uses evil to chastise evil (1977, p. 142). Of course, the reader needs to be aware of the fact that the term for evil is a broad term that need not refer to spiritual wickedness. In fact, it often refers to physical harm or painful hardship (e.g., Genesis 19:19; 2 Samuel 17:14).
A second clarification regarding the sending of an evil spirit upon Saul is the question of, in what sense the spirit was from the Lord. To be honest and fair, the biblical interpreter must be willing to allow the peculiar linguistic features of ancient languages to be clarified and understood in accordance with the way those languages functioned. Specifically, ancient Hebrew (like most all other languages, then and now) was literally loaded with figurative languagei.e., figures of speech, Semitisms, colloquialisms, and idioms. It frequently was the case that [a]ctive verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do (Bullinger, 1898, p. 823, emp. in orig.; cf. MacKnight, 1954, p. 29). Similarly, the figure of speech known as metonymy of the subject occurs [w]here the action is put for the declaration concerning it: or where what is said to be done is put for what is declared, or permitted, or foretold as to be done: or where an action, said to be done, is put for the giving occasion for such action (Bullinger, p. 570, italics in orig., emp. added). Hence, when the Bible says that the distressing spirit that troubled Saul was from the Lord, the writer was using an idiom to indicate that the Lord allowed or permitted the distressing spirit to come upon Saul. George Williams commented: What God permits He is stated in the Bible to perform (1960, p. 127).
In this second case, God did not directly send upon Saul an evil spirit; rather He allowed it to happen in view of Saul’s own propensity for stubborn disobedience. Gleason Archer commented on this point: By these successive acts of rebellion against the will and law of God, King Saul left himself wide open to satanic influencejust as Judas Iscariot did after he had determined to betray the Lord Jesus (1982, p. 179). One need not necessarily suppose that this demonic influence overwhelmed Saul’s free will. Satan can have power over us only insofar as we encourage or invite him to do sofor what God fills not, the devil will (Clarke, n.d., 2:259).
What I find is the case with many Atheists and Skeptics of the Bible is that they project their own human failures and motives unto God and therefore cannot believe that such a Being exists. They look within themselves and see their imperfections and assume that no Ultimate Governor could possibly as they themselves are. They fail to realize that God is not like them. They have self projected warped thinking which leads them to beleive no God could exist.
This raises the problem of which version of the bible is the correct one?
I do not read or write ancient Hebrew. I depend on English translation. In the
Recovery Version when words are supplied by the translator to either interpret or clarify those words are supplied in italics so the reader knows they are not in the original language.
The passage I quoted did not have
"they" in italics. But checking a few other versions that I respect:
Judges 1:19, 1901 American Standard Bible - "And Jehovah was with Judah; and he drove out [the inhabitants of] the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
That version is say "he" - Jehvovah God, was not able to drive them out. You might consider that sympathetic to your view. But my interpretation is the same. In the New Testament Christ the Son did not do many miracles in a certain town because of the people's unbelief
(Matt.13:58). So I think the limitation was on the cooperation of the Hebrews (possibly thier weakness in faith) and not on God's inability to act unilaterally.
Darby's New Translation also has "he" there in Judges 1:19. So when in doubt I check more than one English translation.
That man's shortage of cooperation could limit temporarily God's desire to deal with evil forces is a theme consistent from early Genesis. Obviously Adam's disobedience brought the earth under a curse and the previously limited Devil gained a foothold through Adam's unbelief.
That a similar scheme be seen going on in the judgment and conquest of Canaan with Hebrews does not surprise me. Rather something in their lack of consecration hindered them from fully benefitting from God's help.
"If you abide in Me and I in you you shall ask what you will and it shall be done for you." (John 15:7)
We see the same theme repeated that the degree of God accomplishing His will through man depends upon the degree of His people abiding in Him. So a more total consecration facilitates a more powerful coordination of God and man.
"Command Me concerning the works of My hands" (Isaiah 45:11)
We can see that God is ever working towards that full consecration in which His people could command Him concerning His actions.
It should be added that in the book of Joshua God fought for Israel in dramatic ways. And throughout the Old Testament there were high points when the Hebrews prevailed mightily because of their oneness with Jehovah in moral and spiritual cooperation.
Judges 1:19 is a deficient instance.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2