IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION? (I CORINTHIANS 14:33a)

 

Every once in a while I like to scan the internet to see what atheists have come up with lately to denigrate the Bible. One interesting site contained the thoughts of a fairly reasonable skeptic who had come out of a Christian background. He rightly pointed out that the vast majority of criticisms his fellow non-believers have enumerated over the years involve quite minor points in Scripture which most Christians can easily refute, and in any case do not affect any important teachings at all. However, he still insists that more important issues cannot be swept under the rug quite so easily. The remaining “problem areas” that he mentions were surprisingly few in number and have been addressed in some earlier posts of mine. But below was a new one to me, and I agree that Christians need to have a ready answer to it.

In the story of Babel, God purposely causes confusion among humans. In Genesis 11:7-9, it says, “⁷Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. ⁸So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. ⁹Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” However, 1 Corinthians 14:33 says, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

I could easily help the above writer with his thesis by providing more supposed examples demonstrating God's inconsistent character. For example, Genesis 1-2 obviously portrays God above as a Creator, and yet subsequent chapters of that same book show Him to be the Destroyer par excellence in his destruction of the whole earth through Flood and Sodom through fire. Of course, it is actually quite easy to create an apparent contradiction within the Bible by merely ignoring the original contexts of the passages being compared, especially when jumping from OT to NT passages as in this case. In other words, where proper exegesis is concerned “Context is King.”

So let's begin with some key words in the half verse of I Corinthians quoted above in the King James Version. The first important thing to note is that the KJV's inclusion of the word “author” is vital for our critic to set the scene for implying that the verse claims God is never the cause of disorder. But all modern translations roundly reject the unwarranted addition of “author” into the text since it is found nowhere in the Greek original. Instead, the proper translation should read something like: “For God is not of discord, but of peace.” In other words, God as a whole is not characterized by chaos, but by peace. It does not at all exclude the possibility that God might actually utilize confusion on occasion to accomplish His overall orderly purposes.

Word definitions are also important here. Note the way the word “confusion” is defined in this verse by its opposite, “peace.” Compared to the classical Greek idea of peace being the opposite of war, “OT influence is more apparent in 1 Cor 14:33, where peace is the opposite of disorder in the church.” And in the Hebrew sense, peace expresses “the well-being that comes from God.” (Beck and Brown) Robeck states, “The gifts of God must reflect the nature and character of God, bringing peace rather than confusion in a manner which is decent and orderly.” So again, there is nothing contradictory about God temporarily utilizing confusion to ultimately bring about spiritual peace.

The next step is to branch out our concept of context a little further. Generally, one would have to at least take into account the whole of verse 33, the last half of which concerns the question of women speaking in church. However, here we have a notorious example of a poor choice of verse divisions made in the Middle Ages since the second half of that verse really introduces the separate issue which is elaborated on in verses 34-36. The proper context to 33a is as a conclusion to the preceding discussion in verses 1-32 concerning congregational misuse of the gift of tongues. This is obvious from the opening word “for” or “because,” which always points the reader backwards.

Whereas one of the original purposes for tongues at the Day of Pentacost was to symbolically reverse the confusion of speech resulting after Babel, members of the Corinthian congregation were utilizing it as a way to grab attention for themselves, not even caring if others were prophesying at the same time or whether there was anyone present to interpret their words for the benefit of the whole church.

    : “Paul's operative principle for congregational life and worship is constant. Whatever hinders the movement of the gospel causes confusion rather than growth, offends rather than encourages or strengthens, builds up the self at the expense of others – all this is contrary to God's intention” as Paul concludes in v. 40 “All things should be done decently and in order.”

    “The church was not a forum for personal pontification or self-glorification; it was a place where people were to be built up and God was to be honored.” (Lowery)

Note that in the above two quotes, the authors could just as well have been talking about the Tower of Babel incident, which will now be discussed further.

Michael S. Heiser has practically made a career of promulgating his unique view that the sin of the people at Babel was so bad that God scattered them to the winds and washed His hands of these people, who became the “nations” of the earth. For example, in his book Unseen, Heiser repeatedly (64 times) states that these nations because of their actions at Babel were “disinherited,” “abandoned,” “forsaken,” or “punished.” But he never once explains this view or the exact nature of the sin that caused such a serious reaction from God. In addition, the idea of God abandoning the other nations is flatly contradicted in OT passages such as Isaiah 19:25; 54:5; and Jeremiah 32:27. And, the NT specifically denies that God left them without a witness (see Acts 17:22-31; Romans 1:18-20; 2:12-16).

Ellul: “God gave a name to the first man. Man in turn named all the animals. Thus a relationship is established in which the one named becomes the object of the one naming...They want to name themselves.” He explains this as “the desire to exclude God from his creation.” But God “knows that man's spiritual conquest can lead only to one end – spiritual and material death...But because God wants his creatures to live, he keeps the break from happening.”

A.P. Ross seems to also endorse this view although he words it a little differently: “Their major error was not the building of a city or a tower but the attempt to unite and live in one place...According to the Lord's evaluation, their desire to enhance their unity and strength has potential for the greatest evil.” And therefore, God prevented that from happening so that their damage to themselves and their environment would be minimized. In this, most commentators agree:

    As Ringgren puts it, “This action of God is both punishment and a preventative measure; it prevents men from going too far in their pride.”

    Osborne: The builders' use of power and technology “to create a stronghold for a meaningful life apart from God inevitably posed a threat to the ordered world. It would, therefore, ultimately invite divine intervention, both in judgment and with offers of grace.” The punishment “led to the dreadful loss of human unity: the 'one people' ('am) became the 'nations' (goyim), so God chose, in Abraham, a new 'am through which to bless the whole world.”

    Williamson specifically connects the call of Abraham in the very next episode of Genesis with the tower of Babel incident, suggesting that “the promissory agenda of Genesis 12:1-3 comprises the element of divine grace that otherwise would, somewhat anomalously, be missing.”

    Heath: “By introducing many languages and scattering the people, God spares people and the rest of creation from the evil consequences that would otherwise result.” He cites this as yet another of God's many acts of grace.

Note that in the above OT and NT passages, some good gift by God had become perverted by mankind to the point where it actually had the potential for great harm to His overall purposes and thus had to be either removed or carefully controlled to prevent further damage to man and his environment. One could cite as another example that of the brazen serpent in the wilderness which God commanded to be made for the healing of the people (Numbers 21:9). That same statue was broken into pieces by King Hoshea to God's approval since the people had begun to make offerings to it. Changed circumstances in each case led to different actions by God, but all with the same divine goal in mind.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery has some particularly good things to say on this overall subject in closing:

    “Wherever the images of chaos (confusion, disorder, meaninglessness and formlessness) are present in Scripture, they are uniformly understood as standing in opposition to God and his creation purposes.”

    “In several instances God is depicted as actively bringing chaos to bear on man's rebellion,” citing Genesis 11:7 and Isaiah 34:11 as examples. “Like many images of judgment, chaos is seen as a temporary reversal of the creation order, a reversal ultimately calculated to secure redemption.” One could say the very same thing regarding the destruction of the inhabited earth through the Flood.

    “If orderliness is crucial for humanity's cultural task [outlined in Gen. 1:28; 2:8], it is even more important for God's redemptive work...Ultimately, the notion that God is a God of order and not of confusion (I Cor 14:33) extends beyond the physical realm to include relationships within the state and the church.”