The Author of Confusion
Posted by Vincent Cheung on June 2, 2005(The following is an edited email correspondence. This message from a pastor provides me the context to discuss 1 Corinthians 14:33, which is also used at times to support the idea that God cannot be the author of sin or evil.)
I learned a lot from the "Author of Sin" post.
I started reading it and kept thinking, "Yes, but what about that passage that states, ‘God is not the author of sin?’ Certainly there must be a context for it. I want to see the context and see what the metaphysical-practical connection looks like there."
Then I thought I would go find it. Wow, talk about being conditioned! The closest thing seems to be where the NKJV renders 1 Corinthians 14:33 as "God is not the author of confusion."
Because of reading other people’s opinions over the years and seeing the phrase bantered around as fact, I thought it must be a passage somewhere in the Bible, and for some odd reason had never thought that I needed to find it before.
The bottom line is that it just ain’t there.
Great post and keen insight. I learned a lot.
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, this matter about the author of sin is just tradition, nothing more. Although I think that we should not focus on affirming or denying whether God is the author of sin (since this is not the Bible's own focus), but should rather positively focus on the sovereignty and majesty of God, when it comes down to it, there is nothing biblically or rationally wrong with saying that God is the author of sin. The expression has been so loaded that it automatically sounds wrong or even blasphemous to people, but we can affirm it in a reverent manner, that is, to affirm that God indeed rules over all, not in some remote or secondary way, but in some powerful and direct way, doing whatever he pleases.
Even 1 Corinthians 14:33 is easily explained.
First, we know from many biblical passages that God does cause confusion at times, such as when he acted against Israel’s enemies in battle. Right away, this means that "author of confusion" cannot be superficially understood, but must be truly understood within its context.
The context is verse 40, which says, "Let all things be done decently and in order." That’s the point of the passage and the context for verse 33. Notice that, whether it is order or confusion, Paul is giving instructions to the Corinthians, and not to God.
Like James, Paul is talking about how Christians should behave, rather than the metaphysics behind their behavior. The statement, then, has more to do with God’s approval or disapproval of the situation rather than the metaphysical cause.
But there is a direct answer to the statement, and that is to point out that the word "author" is not in the text in the first place! If you will check your interlinear Bible, the statement reads, "not for is of confusion God but of peace." There is no hint of the word or concept of "author" in there, but it was inserted by the translators.
Thus, the NIV translates: "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace," and other translations like the NASB and ESV are also similar. Of course, even the words "a God" have been inserted here, but it is better than inserting "author," which implies something that is not actually in the statement. A more literal translation might be, "For God is not of disorder but of peace," which is true regarding the immediate context of church order, and even when God decrees evil (including confusion), he does so according to an orderly and rational plan.
Again, thanks for your attention and your comments.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, "Chosen in Christ"
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
Vincent Cheung, "Arguing by Intuition"
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
Gordon Clark, Predestination
Gordon Clark, God and Evil
Jay E. Adams, The Grand Demonstration