God Has Not Evolved
By Dr. Derek Carlsen
Many people misinterpret Scripture because of their underlying assumption that God has evolved in morality. This assumption might be unspoken, but it becomes obvious when people interpret difficult passages. Two examples will be given to illustrate this point, though more could be cited.
First Example
In the days when David was king, there was a famine in the land and when he asked why, the Lord said it was due to Saul’s bloodthirsty household who had murdered some Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21), thus violating the oath that Joshua had made with them (Joshua 9:15-20).
The Execution of Saul’s Kin
When David inquired about what the Gibeonites wanted, they said to hand over seven of Saul’s kin for execution, which he did, and they were executed.
Commentators Respond
“By modern laws, to punish Saul’s family for Saul’s sins would be equally wrong, but in the ancient world the principle of a family’s common responsibility was strongly held. Even so, we may still feel that the Gibeonites were vindictive.”[1] In a newer commentary this same author said, “To our way of thinking, the story told here is strange and repellent. Seven innocent men were executed, with David’s authority.”[2]
“Thus, I suggest that the oracle that links the famine to the failure of Saul serves primarily to give David warrant for his violence against the house of Saul.”[3]
It is also suggested that “the story was an attempt to provide the Davidic interpretation of the death of the seven Saulides [and that it is]…a clever political act whereby David got rid of his political rivals from the house of Saul.”[4]
“David gladly agreed to their suggestion in spite of the fact that the Old Testament forbids the punishment of children for crimes committed by their parents.”[5]
God’s Drought
The Lord told David why there was a drought, thus revealing that the offense was ultimately against Him and therefore He needed to be appeased. Only God could have ended the drought which He did after blood had been shed. The above quotes, however, appear to ignore this fact, thus implying that God has evolved, or that the whole drought narrative is a fabrication.
God Doesn’t Change
“For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.” (1 Samuel 15:29). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8). God cannot be appeased by violating His law: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16).
Before the Lord
Twice we are told that this whole undertaking was done “before the Lord” (2 Samuel 21:6, 9). This same phrase appears when Israel had turned their affections toward other gods. We read, “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the Lord, out in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.’” (Numbers 25:4). The bodies of Saul’s kin were left hanging until God’s wrath had been turned away from Israel, which was evidenced by the coming rain (2 Samuel 21:10). These executions were not motivated by revenge, but by the need to satisfy Biblical justice.
Conclusion
When we bow to the whole of Scripture, the only way to make sense of the executions and the ending of the drought is to conclude that those who died were guilty of bloodshed along with Saul—they had taken part in the murders. Seven people were selected, not because this was a sacred number, but because seven murderers were walking around in Israel.
Second Example
When the two angels, sent to warn Lot about the coming destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, were in his home, the house was surrounded by the men of the city who demanded that the strangers be handed over to them (Genesis 19). The men of Sodom wanted to “know” the two visitors and the common interpretation states that this means they wanted to have sexual relations with them.
Lot’s Daughters
The common interpretation of the rest of the story is that Lot said it would be wrong to rape his male guests, offering instead his two daughters to the mob to be used as sex slaves. People try to make sense of Lot’s actions by suggesting that the Older Testament’s version of patriarchy meant that the father could do whatever he wanted with those under him because women were of less value than men and that the culture believed that hospitality required such actions. Thus, Lot acted honorably by seeking to defend his male guests who had come into his house; however, he wasn’t a perfect man, and he made a poor decision with respect to his daughters. Gordon Wenham makes a startling comment about Lot swapping his daughters for his guests, saying, “Putting their welfare above his daughters’ may have been questionable, but it shows just how committed he was to being a good host.”[6] (Emphasis added).
God’s Way
The Older Testament strongly defends the weak and vulnerable—widows, orphans, the poor and strangers are all vulnerable (Exodus 22:22-24; Deuteronomy 10:18). To suggest that women and girls could be handled like chickens is, at best, naïve. God is a loving, protecting Father, and He is the example for earthly fathers, showing how they ought to behave toward their children—nourish, instruct and protect (1 Chronicles 29:10; Psalm 89:26; Isaiah 9:6).
Peter’s View
Peter, by the Holy Spirit, called Lot ‘righteous’ three times in two verses (2 Peter 2:7-8). To hand one’s daughters over to a violent mob to be continuously raped is heinous. That Lot stood for righteousness in the city of Sodom is evidenced by the mob’s accusation that he was always acting like their judge (Genesis 19:9). This shows Lot to be like Noah, “a preacher of righteousness” amid perverse people (2 Peter 2:5).
Defending one’s Household
A righteous man would defend his daughters with his life. Only a scoundrel would do what most claim Lot tried to do. The magnitude of such a travesty against his daughters cannot be diluted by calling it a “poor decision,” because such behavior would be irreconcilable with Peter’s view of Lot.
Infamously Wicked
Sodom and Gomorrah are infamous for being very wicked, however, Genesis doesn’t spell out their sin; other passages provide a little more detail. The prophet Ezekiel, for example, says, “Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore, I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50).
The Word ‘Know’
The crowd told Lot to send out the two men so that they could ‘know’ them. This word ‘know’ can mean knowledge or have a sexual connotation, thus meaning that the crowd wanted to rape the angels (the word does not mean ‘rape,’ but that is the suggested scenario). Our understanding of what is going on in this passage rests upon the meaning of the word ‘know.’ In the light of what has been said so far, it is impossible to believe that Lot understood the word to mean sexual relations.
The Evil Pretext
The men of Sodom had the pretext of protecting the citizens of the city and therefore needed access to the strangers to discover their intentions for being in Sodom. The visitors might be thieves or assassins and so the “responsible” citizens of the city wanted to verify their objectives. Lot saw through this charade, saying that if the city was afraid that they would awaken in the morning to find property missing or someone dead, then he would be accountable for this. Lot fully vouched for his guests by guaranteeing that if anything nefarious transpired in the night, then his precious daughters would guarantee that Lot himself would pay the penalty. Lot was not abdicating his parental responsibilities but underlining the fact that his guests were not a threat to the city. The men of the city rejected Lot’s offer because their only desire was to steal from and extort the strangers.
Lot’s Bravery
When Lot stepped out of his house and proclaimed righteousness to the mob, he was manifesting great courage. The wicked, however, rejected his testimony and threatened his life. The angels then intervened, snatching him from the mob and blinding their eyes.
Rescuing the Righteous
Lot remained faithful even though his righteous spirit was tormented daily by the extreme wickedness he was exposed to (2 Peter 2:8). He faithfully proclaimed God’s truth to evil people right up to the end. Remember when Abraham was praying for Sodom, he said, “Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen.18:25). God would not “slay the righteous with the wicked” and so He rescued Lot.
Conclusion
We must reconcile how Lot’s offer to the mob harmonizes with Peter’s emphatic declaration about his righteousness. It all hangs on the word ‘know.’ This author’s explanation about what Lot was thinking is easily reconciled with Peter’s statements about him. The traditional interpretation of the word ‘know’ and what Lot is said to have offered the mob is opposed to Peter’s testimony that Lot was a righteous man. Lot could not have offered what the common interpretation claims unless God has evolved, however, if God evolves, truth is destroyed. God’s revelation has always been precise and the high tower He calls us to possess is to trust every word that proceeds from His mouth. One cannot decimate the responsibilities of fatherhood (i.e., protecting your family) and be regarded as righteous, unless God evolves over time. However, God says, “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6).
[1] Payne, D. F. (1994). 1 and 2 Samuel. New Bible Commentary (4th ed., p. 331). Inter-Varsity Press.
[2] Payne, D. F. (2001). I & II Samuel (p. 259). Westminster John Knox Press.
[3] Brueggemann, W. (1990). First and Second Samuel (p. 337). John Knox Press.
[4] Anderson, A.A. (1989). 2 Samuel (Vol. 11, p. 251). Word Books, Publisher.
[5] Evans, M. J. (2004). The Message of Samuel: Personalities, Potential, Politics and Power (p. 265). Inter-Varsity Press.
[6] Wenham, G. J. (1994). Genesis 16–50 (Vol. 2, p. 56). Word Books, Incorporated.