Ouweneel On God’s Counsel

12-03-2025 - Posted by Geert-Jan
Originally posted on February 10, 2024 - by Andre Piet

On the YouTube channel ‘Groeien in Geloof,’ the well-known (Dutch) theologian and Bible expositor Prof. Dr. Willem Ouweneel was presented with the following question.

Why did God allow sin into the world through the tree in paradise? He knew it would go wrong, didn’t He? This is a mystery to me. You are a wise man; can you say something about this?

This question is a classic within Christian orthodoxy. The question points to the idea that if something were to go wrong with God, it would contradict His omniscience. Let me highlight some excerpts from Ouweneel’s answer and examine them in light of Scripture.

God’s counsel

Ouweneel:
I know of a well-known theologian in the Netherlands—we won’t mention names—who says that even the fall into sin was part of God’s counsel. Well, I do not believe that. I believe it is extremely useful to distinguish between the counsel of God and the ways of God. This is because not only is God’s providence an important factor in this regard, but also man’s responsibility.

Ouweneel rightly points out that having a clear understanding of distinguishing God’s counsel is of utmost importance. By this, we refer to God’s (often) hidden plans and purposes. In Ephesians 1:11, Paul states that God works in all things “according to the counsel of His will.” The Greek word for ‘counsel’ here is ‘boulé’ (Str. 1012) and refers to God’s hidden purpose or intent. In the NBG51 translation, this word is also translated as ‘purpose’ (Acts 5:38) or ‘plan’ (Acts 22:47).

Ouweneel denies that ’the fall into sin’ (we will leave the term itself aside for convenience) was part of God’s counsel. The reason he gives here and further on is that, according to him, sin and disobedience belong to human responsibility and not to God’s counsel. But how does he reconcile this with the fact that, according to the apostle Peter, the greatest crime ever committed happened “according to the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23; 4:28)? God not only knew that man would commit this crime, but in His counsel, it was also accounted for—yes, determined.

God’s counsel and will

Ouweneel finds it useful to distinguish between God’s counsel and God’s ways, but wouldn’t it be even better to separate what Scripture itself distinguishes in this context, namely God’s counsel and His will (“according to the counsel of His will”; Eph. 1:11)? For it is precisely the conflation of these two concepts that has led to much confusion, even in common Bible translations.

Thou wilt then say unto me, Why doth He still find fault? For who hath resisted His will?
Romans 9:19 (YLT)

Paul had spoken in the preceding verses about Pharaoh, who refused to listen to God’s revealed will. Through Moses, he was repeatedly told, “Let My people go!” But his heart was hardened (Ex. 7:13, 22; 8:19), and when he was on the verge of giving in under the pressure of the plagues, we explicitly read that God hardened his heart (Ex. 9:12; 10:20) so that he continued to say “no.” What Paul argues is that it was God’s purpose for Pharaoh to keep refusing, for it is written, “For this very thing I have raised thee up, that I might show in thee My power, and that My name might be declared in all the earth.” Moses was informed of this beforehand (Ex. 4:21), but Pharaoh was not. To maximally demonstrate His power, God needed a defiant Pharaoh.

Then Paul lets his imaginary opponent object: what does God still have to complain about? Almost all common translations then render: “For who has resisted His will?” However, by translating it as ‘will,’ the translators seriously miss the mark. For Paul does not use the Greek word for ‘will’ (thelēma) here but ‘counsel’ (boulēma). Pharaoh resisted God’s revealed will (“Let My people go”), but he explicitly did not resist God’s hidden counsel (“For this very thing I have raised thee up, that…”). In other words, both the aforementioned crucifixion of Jesus and Pharaoh’s disobedience were explicitly part of God’s counsel according to Scripture. No one has ever resisted that counsel! With GOD, nothing ever goes wrong, not even when man radically opposes His will.

Jehovah hath wrought all for His own purpose, Yea, even the wicked [worketh] for a day of evil.
— Proverbs 16:4 (YLT)

Responsibility

Ouweneel:
God wanted something different from the animals. You can train an animal, you can tame it. They can also be stubborn at times, but then you have to punish them. But an animal has no awareness of good and evil. And man, who was created with his own responsibility, that meant that God took the risk—now I say it in very human terms—that man might misuse that responsibility. Even more, God also knew that this would happen.

According to Ouweneel, what distinguishes man from animals is that man has responsibility. However, this word is not a direct biblical concept, as neither Hebrew nor Greek has an equivalent term for it. Therefore, we must reason about it—and whenever we do so, we must always be cautious. This is especially true for this concept since ‘responsibility,’ according to the dictionary, can have two very different meanings:

1. The obligation to give an account.
2. Bearing care for a good outcome.

Reasoning from the first meaning, it is, of course, not God (cf. Rom. 9:20) but man who is expected to give an account. Human responsibility refers to the ability to respond to what is required (> response-ability). But if we consider the second meaning of ‘responsibility,’ then it is not man but primarily God who ensures (and even guarantees) the good outcome of everything. In short, the concept of ‘responsibility’ is too broad in meaning to serve as a precise distinguishing term. If we want to think biblically, we must also use biblical words.

Did God take a risk?

In the above quote, Ouweneel presents a rather obvious contradiction. He claims that God took a risk in creating man. But he immediately admits that this is a very human way of reasoning. And rightly so, because whoever takes a risk is by definition unaware of the outcome, which can obviously never apply to the omniscient God. Ouweneel not only admits this, but he also contradicts himself by stating that God already knew in advance that man would eat from the forbidden fruit. So implicitly, Ouweneel acknowledges that God did not take a risk when He forbade man to eat from that one tree.

Forty years in the wilderness not God’s counsel?

Ouweneel:
I will give a simple example. It was God’s counsel that Israel would enter the promised land, but that it took them forty years to get there—that was not God’s counsel. That was due to their own fault; because of their continuous disobedience, they had to take such a detour that the entire journey ended up lasting forty years.

This example may be simple, but Ouweneel’s claim can also be simply refuted. In Deuteronomy 29, when the people of Israel were about to enter the land, Moses said the following:

Ye have seen all that Jehovah hath done before your eyes, in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land; the great trials which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders; and Jehovah hath not given to you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, till this day; and I cause you to go forty years in a wilderness…
— Deuteronomy 29 (YLT)

Why did the journey through the wilderness last forty years? Certainly, Scripture says: they were not able to enter in because of unbelief (Heb. 4:19). They did not submit to the revealed will of God. That is entirely true. But this unbelief was indeed according to the counsel of God. For He had not given them a heart to understand, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. It is a situation identical to the past two thousand years (= forty cycles of jubilee years, precisely), during which Israel as a nation has likewise been unable to believe (Rom. 11:8). Ouweneel attempts to exclude certain matters from the counsel of God, but the example he gives proves the opposite.

The bottleneck: eternally lost

Ouweneel:
Just like that theologian I mentioned, who claims that even the fall into sin was determined by God, just as God supposedly decided in advance which people would not believe in Him, and that they would then be eternally lost. No, the responsibility of man is very great.

Here the true reason emerges as to why Ouweneel (and many with him) cannot and do not want to believe that everything happens “according to God’s counsel.” The idea that ‘eternal (read: endless) perdition’ was conceived by God Himself is rightly horrifying. Ouweneel can imagine (see below) that any evil which is ultimately turned to good is part of God’s counsel. But evil that continues to exist, without hope of change, is something he cannot and does not dare attribute to God. Therefore, he is forced to place this entirely under human responsibility. However, if he were to recognize that Scripture does not speak of an endless ‘eternity’ but of ‘aeons’ with a beginning and an end, he would not need this escape. For in that case, he would understand that God ultimately makes everything right, for everyone (Colossians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28; Romans 5:18; 1 Timothy 4:10).

Knowledge of good not available separately

Ouweneel:
He first had to gain knowledge of good and evil, because before the fall into sin, man had no knowledge of evil, but also not of good. We only know what good is in contrast with evil. That is why I say, man was as innocent as a newborn baby. By eating from that tree, he discovered what evil was. He was cast out from God’s presence, had to leave the garden, but only then did he also discover what good was. That good is, namely, that which stands in contrast to that evil. So these two things always go hand in hand.

To this, I can only wholeheartedly say ‘amen!’ Knowledge of good is never available separately in Scripture. God knew that man would eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and it had to happen this way. It was a necessary evil. Man did indeed go against God’s revealed will, but explicitly not against God’s counsel. For only through this path, in contrast with evil, could man learn to know the good. Precisely because God wanted to demonstrate His goodness (grace, mercy, love), He needed the ‘contrast agent’ of evil. Just like a jeweler who, in order to showcase a jewel, first creates a dark background. Or like a scriptwriter who cannot craft a ‘happy ending’ without a preceding drama.

Too far?

Ouweneel:
That fall into sin—you cannot say that God determined it; that goes too far. But you also cannot say that it took God by surprise. Oh dear, what now? God knew it beforehand, so in that sense, the fall into sin is also part of God’s ways with humanity. And that is why it is such a complex problem.

Ouweneel acknowledges that God foresaw evil and also needs it to demonstrate the good. But he recoils from the only conclusion that is both logical and biblical, namely that everything happens “according to the (determined) counsel of God.” “That goes too far,” he says, and he justifies this with the following words:

Ouweneel:
You go too far when you say God wanted it this way, because then God would have willed sin, and you can never say that.

Once again, we see here the confusion between God’s will and His counsel. Adam and Eve went against God’s (revealed) will, just as Pharaoh would later do. But they did not resist God’s (hidden) counsel, because that is impossible.

It had to happen—why?

When Scripture says about Jesus’ crucifixion that it had to happen (Luke 24:26), this is not a moral necessity. For all those involved in that event acted against God’s will. And yet, it had to happen. This “had to” refers to “the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God.” The prophets had also foretold it, and so it had to take place. Moreover, without human disobedience, God could never have brought forth the greatest good. And for that reason as well, this evil had to occur. We see this same phenomenon demonstrated in the story of Joseph: it was precisely through the injustice and crime of Joseph’s brothers that God fulfilled His purpose of saving the house of Jacob (Genesis 45:7,8).

Two sides

Ouweneel is absolutely right when he observes that as humans, we cannot fully comprehend both sides—God’s counsel and human ‘responsibility.’ It is like a coin: we can see both sides, but not at the same time. We see either the top or the bottom. The divine perspective or the human perspective. Both are true, and we should certainly not reason away the (human) aspect of sin and guilt. But neither should we do what Ouweneel does by excluding certain matters from God’s counsel. For by recognizing that God Himself is the Creator of both light and darkness, of peace and calamity, we give Him the highest honor!

…that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides Me, I am Jehovah, and none else, Former of light, and Creator of darkness, Maker of peace, and Creator of evil, I, Jehovah, do all these things. Isaiah 45:6,7 (literal translation)

For God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness. O depth of riches, and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways! For who did know the mind of the Lord? Or who did become His counselor? Or who did first give to Him, and it shall be given back to him again? Because of Him, and through Him, and to Him are the all things; to Him [is] the glory—to the ages. Amen! Romans 11:32-36 (literal translation)

Delen: