Isaiah 45:7 has God say 'I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I the LORD do all these things' — apparently making God the direct author of evil.
Refutation
The verb pair matters: yatsar ('form') is used of light, bara ('create,' the strong term reserved elsewhere almost exclusively for God's sovereign originating acts, cf. Gen 1:1) is used of both darkness and ra. But the noun ra (רַע) has a wide Hebrew semantic range covering calamity/disaster/misfortune as well as moral wickedness (BDB, HALOT); context, not root meaning, decides — compare Amos 3:6, 'shall there be ra in a city and Yahweh hath not done it?', where ra plainly means disaster/judgment, not the citizens' sin. Isaiah 45:7 is a merism (shalom/ra as an inclusive opposite pair, matching light/darkness), and its context is decisive: this is the Cyrus oracle (45:1-7), naming a Persian king generations in advance as Yahweh's instrument, addressed to a people about to live under Persian rule and encounter Zoroastrian dualism — Ahura Mazda (light, order, good) locked in eternal combat with Angra Mainyu/Ahriman (darkness, evil), two co-equal, competing ultimate principles. Isaiah 45:5-7 is a direct polemic against exactly this dualism: 'I am the LORD, and there is none else... that they may know... there is none beside me' — the claim is monotheistic sovereignty over the whole cosmos, including calamity and judgment, denying any independent evil deity/principle rivaling Yahweh — not an assertion that God is the moral author of sin. It should be conceded honestly that the KJV's English 'evil' (1611, when the word's semantic field covered 'harm/misfortune' as readily as 'wickedness,' as in 'deliver us from evil') actively misleads modern readers; modern translations (NASB, ESV, NIV) render ra here as 'calamity/disaster/woe' precisely to correct this false impression — a real translation-history issue, not a dodge.
Positive case
Classical theism's privation theory of evil (Augustine, Aquinas: evil is not a positive substance but a corruption or absence of a due good) is entirely compatible with, and clarified by, Isaiah 45:7's actual claim: Yahweh sovereignly ordains and permits calamity/judgment as an act of moral governance — as a just judge 'creates' a sentence without being the author of the crime punished — while moral evil itself remains rooted in creaturely will, exactly as Isaiah 1-39 repeatedly grounds the coming ra of chapter 45 in Israel's own sin.
Steelmanned objection
If God directly 'creates' evil according to his own scripture, this refutes classical theism's claim that God is wholly good and that evil is merely a privation with no positive source in him — the text seems to make Yahweh the efficient cause of moral evil, collapsing standard free-will and privation-based responses to the problem of evil.
Incoherence of the alternative
Zoroastrian-style ultimate dualism is philosophically incoherent on its own terms: if two co-eternal principles of good and evil genuinely interact within a shared cosmos, some more basic reality — a common causal nexus and a standard by which one is judged 'good' and the other 'evil' — must underlie and unify both, and that shared ground is itself more ultimate than either principle. Dualism cannot be truly ultimate without smuggling in the deeper monism it denies; Isaiah's monotheism is not merely religiously preferable here but metaphysically necessary to ground any single, coherent moral order.
Fallacy tags
equivocation
Sources cited
- BDB / HALOT, Hebrew Lexicons — ra, bara, yatsar entries
- John Oswalt, NICOT Isaiah 40-66 — on the Cyrus oracle and its anti-dualistic polemic
- Edward Feser / Augustine, privation theory of evil (Confessions, Enchiridion) — on evil as privatio boni
Scripture referenced
Isaiah 45:1-7, Amos 3:6, Genesis 1:1
Confidence
strong
Review status
no content-completeness issues flagged
Source locator
Specific Issues → row 46
Related arguments