Reconciling Sovereignty
QUESTION
“And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.” (II Samuel 24:1-2)
“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.” (I Chronicles 21:1-2)
Would you harmonize these two passages for me?
ANSWER
I believe the reconciliation comes from a proper view of sovereignty. Absolutism ham-handedly defines sovereignty such that God is the direct, immediate, cause of everything that comes to pass, whether good or evil. But sovereignty does not imply direct causation of this sort. Sovereignty is dominion. It is independent authority. It may be exercised through action or inaction. It may do something directly to achieve a particular objective or permit something done by others to achieve that objective.
THREE PRINCIPLES TO KEEP IN MIND
To reconcile such statements dealing with God’s sovereignty without distorting the character of God, we must keep these three things in mind:
God does not sin (I John 1:5).
God permits his creation to rebel against him (Genesis 3:6).
God uses rebellion to achieves certain objectives (Genesis 50:20).
The first item teaches us that God did not directly, actively, and causatively force David to rebel against him and number Israel. Fallen men can produce all manner of rebellious ideas and actions. God is under no obligation to prevent the commission of those ideas and actions. Yet he no doubt constrains the expressions of evil in untold ways all around us through providence.
GOD RESTRAINS SIN
I wonder how much more rebellion men would practice, were it not for the unseen restraints of providence? That sobering thought has bubble-busting ramifications most would rather not consider. To state that more bluntly, the “moral superiority” of a chaste man is often dismantled by the observation that women never found him interesting enough to provide the opportunities they set before the town cad. “Walk a mile in his moccasins” seems a needful counterbalance to short-sighted self-congratulation, and perhaps a call to have more charity with respect to the challenges that some face, in the hope that some reflexive charity might be forthcoming. It will certainly be needed, albeit in some other contemptible domain of sin.
But I digress, God permits rebellion. He permits his creation to sin against him. He does it in a way that is consistent with achieving his objectives. Where David’s numbering is concerned, God permitted (or “longsuffered”) it, though he did not actively and causatively forced David to commit this act. God knows the end from the beginning and understands all the consequences of any actions he permits. This includes how to offset consequences that might otherwise thwart his plan. This ability is difficult to understand given our limited grasp. Still God possess this ability whether we can grasp it or not. As such, he can permit rebellious actions in a way that accomplishes his plan rather than overturning it. Only an omniscient God can orchestrate this complexity.
IMPORTANT AFFIRMATIONS
It seems to me that we must affirm:
Satan provoked (tempted) David to rebel against God in numbering Israel.
God could have prevented Satan from doing so.
God permitted Satan to do so.
As a result it can be said that God moved David in this way.
God’s “moving” of David was not directly causative, but indirectly permissive and providential.
AN ILLUSTRATION
Some say that FDR knew Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor and he permitted it because he believed America’s entry into WWII was inevitable and that the attack would galvanize public sentiment to support a declaration of war. Under this arrangement, it could be said that JAPAN moved the US to enter the war. Their attack was the immediate, direct cause. It could also be said that FDR moved the US to enter the war by permitting JAPAN to do so. Two actions, one direct and active (Japan); one passive and permissive (FDR).
While this analogy is not perfect, I believe it has some utility in demonstrating that there are different types of causation at work even when considering a single event. These waters get deep pretty quickly, so I’ll leave it at that for now.
- Elder Daniel Samons
FOLLOW UP QUESTION
Brother Dan, would you be amenable to saying that the Lord was ultimately causal (as opposed to immediately causal) upon David in this instance?
ANSWER
Through a chain of causation, it is possible to cast God as the ultimate cause of everything. Indeed, if nothing was created then nothing could come to pass. When causation is considered relative to any particular event, this chain of causation approach seems more academic and philosophical than helpful and explanatory. One might assert that Noah was the ultimate cause of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, but few would be comfortable ascribing blame for this murderous act to a grandfather displaced by more than 4000 years.
Consider how the bible assigns the blame for the entrance of sin into the domain of humanity:
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Romans 5:12)
“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19)
The bible places the blame for the entrance of sin into the domain of humanity squarely upon man for an act of disobedience, not upon some philosophical, string of causation argument that pushes the blame back to God. This is further supported by the claim that “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) One might ask, how did man come to a place of seeking out “many inventions” or “new ways of going about life other than following the revealed will of God”? This matter requires careful handling and is fraught opportunities to step on a theological landmine. The following assertions seem unavoidable:
God created man “very good.” (Gen 1:31)
Maintaining an upright moral standing required obedience. (3:7)
Man was created with a will or capacity to rebel against God. (3:6)
Man was created with a responsibility to obey God. (2:17)
God was not obligated to compel man’s obedience. (3:6)
Sin is a function of man’s decision to misuse liberty. (Rom 5:12,19)
This all places the blame squarely on man, not on God. Consequently, I believe this is how we must speak regarding the “blame” for every sin that is ever committed. I believe that sin is a creation of the creation. In other words, God did not directly and actively cause Adam to rebel against him. If he did then, God would be a house set against himself, which cannot stand. Rather, God’s creation was “very good,” man was given both the responsibility to conform to the revealed will of God and also the liberty to make real moral choices in the matter. The confluence of those three streams imparted to man some creative faculties of his own – namely the ability to create human sin. It is for this reason that I have often said that sin is not a part of God’s creation (Genesis 1:31); sin is a creation of the creation, born of liberty used in opposition to the revealed will of God (Genesis 3:6).
Returning to David, and “ultimate causality,” I would admit that there is a philosophical case for this through a string of events but would caution that this observation is often the opening salvo for an argument that intends to place the blame for sin on God. In other words, “ultimate cause” is a way to blame God for evil. That view fails to consider how the bible places blame for sin in the domain of humanity on man. As such, I am reluctant to speak of “ultimate cause” in such contexts, in that it requires considerable legwork to avoid confusion. It is a philosophical distraction more than a helpful clarification, IMO.
This is a difficult theological needle to thread. Like the chimp, I’m often found holding my head because of the level of precision required to speak about this is higher than we normally encounter. As to whether my efforts to clarify are insightful or arboreal, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. As for me, I’m going to have another banana.
- Elder Daniel Samons