Dear Karl,
Sorry, I had in mind sentences where actions were described as ra(, not
objects.
The question is not really the semantic range of ra(, but rather how to
translate Isaiah 45:7.
Would you admit to God behaving immorally, or is that is out of the question
by definition?
... The writers were concerned to display God's supreme power
and didn't worry about whether we would consider the acts moral or not.
Consequently, I think that God is shown behaving immorally.
For example, it seems to me that causing death only out of anger is not
moral.
There are the cases, for example, of Nadav and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2) and of
Uzza (2 Sam. 6:6-7). There is God hardening Pharaoh's heart, only to prove
God's power. I think the flood is another example.
These stories were written to illustrate God's awesome power and supreme
freedom of action.
The story of Abraham questioning God about the morality of his destroying
Sodom illustrates the fact that God's actions can be judged as being moral
or not moral. They do not need to be assumed to be moral by definition,
simply because God is the actor. That was not Abraham's assumption.
Liz
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.