Refuting Marcionite Claims

I have recently encountered some Marcionite claims, and I must make it very clear that I will not stand for any blasphemous distortions of my YHWH.

The issue here is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word translated as "repented" (נָחַם, nacham). This word doesn't always mean "to repent" in the sense of turning away from sin. It can also mean "to be sorry," "to be moved to pity," "to comfort oneself," or "to change one's mind" about a planned course of action. In fact, in the context of Exodus 32, it's clear that God wasn't repenting of any sinful thoughts. The "evil" (רָעָה, ra'ah) that He "thought to do" was to destroy the Israelites for their idolatry (Exodus 32:7-10). This was a just punishment, a righteous response to their rebellion. God wasn't having "evil thoughts" in the sense of sinful thoughts. He was contemplating a just judgment.

When Moses interceded for the people, God "relented" (נָחַם, nacham) from this planned destruction (Exodus 32:11-14). This doesn't mean God changed His mind in the sense of realizing He was wrong. It means He responded to Moses' plea, showing mercy instead of judgment. This is consistent with God's character, as revealed throughout Scripture. He is both just and merciful, and He often withholds judgment in response to prayer and repentance. So, to answer your question directly, no, Exodus 32:14 does not say that God repented of evil thoughts. It says that He relented from a planned (and just) punishment, in response to Moses' intercession. This is an example of God's mercy, not of God's sinfulness.

The key is to recognize that God is ultimately sovereign over all things, including the actions of both humans and spiritual beings. This doesn't mean that God directly causes every event, or that He forces people to sin. It means that He permits certain things to happen, and He uses even sinful actions to accomplish His greater purposes.

In the case of David's census, both passages are true, but from different perspectives. From a relative perspective, Satan was the immediate cause of David's sin. He incited David, tempted him, and influenced his decision. However, from an absolute perspective, God was ultimately in control. He allowed Satan to tempt David, and He used David's sin to accomplish His own purposes (which, in this case, involved judging Israel for their sins).

This is similar to the story of Job, where Satan afflicts Job, but only with God's permission and within the limits set by God (Job 1:12; 2:6). Satan is a tool in God's hand, an agent of His judgment, even though Satan's intentions are evil.

The key to understanding this apparent contradiction is to recognize the different meanings of the word "evil." In 1 Timothy 4:4, Paul is talking about physical creation, specifically food. He's saying that all food is good and can be received with thanksgiving. This is not a statement about moral evil.

In Isaiah 45:7, however, the word "evil" (רַע, ra') has a broader meaning. It can refer to moral evil (sin), but it can also refer to calamity, disaster, adversity, or harm. In this context, it's best understood as referring to calamity or disaster. God is saying that He is the ultimate source of both "peace" (שָׁלוֹם, shalom) and "calamity" (ra'). This is a statement about God's sovereignty over all things, not a statement that God creates moral evil.

Furthermore, even if we were to interpret the "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 as referring to moral evil, this would not contradict the fact that God is good. God can use evil for a greater good. He can ordain sinful actions, even cause them to happen, without Himself being guilty of sin. This is because God's ultimate purpose is always good, even when He uses evil to accomplish that purpose.

Therefore, the apparent contradiction between 1 Timothy 4:4 and Isaiah 45:7 is resolved by recognizing the different meanings of the word "evil," and by understanding that God can use even evil for His own good purposes. The fact that God creates "evil" (calamity, disaster) does not mean that He is Himself evil, nor does it mean that He approves of sin. It simply means that He is sovereign over all things, and that He works all things together for good.

Yes, Psalm 18:11 says God made darkness His covering, but this isn't about God being darkness. It's poetic language, describing the awe-inspiring power and mystery of God. It's about His transcendence, the fact that He's beyond our full comprehension. It's the same idea as when we're told that God dwells in "unapproachable light" (1 Timothy 6:16). Is God both in darkness and unapproachable light? Of course not. These are metaphors, ways of describing aspects of God's being that go beyond our limited human understanding. To take these poetic descriptions and use them to claim that God is somehow different in the Old Testament than in the New is just intellectually dishonest.

Now, about this supposed comparison between Yahweh and the beast in Revelation, based on Hosea 13:7-8. First of all, the passage in Hosea is clearly about God's judgment on Israel for their disobedience. It's using animal imagery to describe the severity of that judgment, not to say that God is literally a lion, a leopard, or a bear. It's a metaphor, a way of conveying the intensity of God's wrath against sin. To take this imagery and then try to connect it to the symbolic beast in Revelation, twisting it to somehow make God look like the bad guy, is just ridiculous. It's a complete misrepresentation of both passages. The beast in Revelation represents a human kingdom opposed to God, not God Himself.

Then there's this claim that nobody has ever seen or heard God, based on John 5:37, and then trying to use that to contradict Exodus 33:11, where it says Moses spoke to God "face to face"... it's just more twisting of Scripture. John 5:37 is not saying that nobody has ever literally seen God's physical form. It's saying that the Jews who were rejecting Jesus had not truly perceived God's presence, had not truly understood His message. It's about spiritual perception, not physical sight.

Furthermore, even if we were to take John 5:37 as a literal statement that no human had ever physically seen God, that still wouldn't mean that Exodus 33:11 is a contradiction. The phrase "face to face" is a Hebrew idiom, meaning "intimately" or "directly." It doesn't necessarily mean Moses literally saw God's physical face. In fact, Exodus 33:20 explicitly states that no one can see God's face and live. So, even within the same chapter, we have a clarification that "face to face" is not meant to be taken with wooden literalness.

The whole point is that Moses had a unique relationship with God, a direct communication that was unlike anything anyone else had experienced. It's about the closeness of the relationship, not about the physical details of the encounter.

The claim that Jesus never called God "Yahweh" is, at best, misleading. While it's true that the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament use Kyrios ("Lord") where the Old Testament Hebrew would have had Yahweh, this is not evidence that Jesus avoided the divine name. The New Testament writers, following the practice of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), used Kyrios as a substitute for Yahweh out of reverence. This is the same practice that led to the use of "Adonai" in Jewish tradition. It's a substitution, not a rejection.

Furthermore, Jesus explicitly affirmed the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), the central confession of Jewish faith: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Mark 12:29). The "LORD" here is Yahweh. Jesus is affirming Yahweh as His God, the one true God. He's not introducing a different God. He's identifying the Father with the Yahweh of the Old Testament.

The claim that Jesus said the Jews' "God was not his" is a twisting of John 8:42-44. Jesus is not saying that the Jews worship a different deity. He's saying that they are not truly following the God they claim to worship. He's accusing them of hypocrisy, of rejecting God's truth, of being children of the devil in their actions and attitudes, not in their theological identification of God. The "devil" here is not a reference to a literal fallen angel, but is instead a reference to human opposition.

The passage from Revelation 19:11-12, about the rider on the white horse having a name "written that no one knew except Himself," is a symbolic description of Jesus' authority and power, which are derived from God. The "name" represents His role and identity as the Messiah, the one who executes God's judgment. It's not about a secret, unknown name that replaces Yahweh.

As for the claim that there are "two creation stories" in Genesis, this is a common misunderstanding based on a failure to recognize the literary structure of Genesis 1-2. Genesis 1 is a general account of creation, focusing on the overall order and purpose of the cosmos. Genesis 2 is a more specific account, focusing on the creation of humanity and the setting of the Garden of Eden. They are not contradictory; they are complementary. Genesis 2 zooms in on the events of Genesis 1, providing more detail about the creation of humans and their environment.

The use of different names for God ("Elohim" in Genesis 1, "Yahweh Elohim" in Genesis 2) is not evidence of different authors or different gods. Elohim is a general term for "God" or "gods," while Yahweh is the personal name of the God of Israel. The combination "Yahweh Elohim" emphasizes that the one true God, the Creator of all things, is also the personal God who interacts with humanity.

The claim that Genesis 1 depicts God as "distant" while Genesis 2 depicts Him as "human-like" is a misreading of the text. Both chapters emphasize God's transcendence and His immanence. Genesis 1 highlights God's power and sovereignty in creating the universe, while Genesis 2 highlights His personal involvement in creating humanity and providing for their needs. These are not contradictory aspects of God's character; they are complementary aspects.

And the idea that Jesus' statement, "no one has ever seen God," somehow contradicts the idea that God interacted with Adam and Eve is also a misunderstanding. First of all, Jesus was talking about seeing God in His fullness, which no human ever has. But more importantly, the idea that God interacted with Adam and Eve in the garden doesn't mean they literally saw Him in the same way they saw each other. It's possible that He communicated with them through dreams, visions, or some other means that didn't involve a direct, physical sighting of His being.

Finally, the reference to 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, about "the god of this age" blinding the minds of unbelievers, is not about the Old Testament God. It's about the Adversary, the force of opposition to God's truth, which blinds people to the Gospel. It's not about two different gods, but about the spiritual battle between truth and falsehood.

In conclusion, the attempt to separate the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament is a false dichotomy, based on a misunderstanding of Scripture and a failure to recognize the continuity of God's character and plan. Yahweh, the God of Israel, is the same God revealed by Jesus Christ, the one true God, the Father. To claim otherwise is to distort the biblical message and to create a false god in the image of one's own limited understanding.