Paul commends his readers to be transformed by the renewing of their minds (Rom 12:3).
In this article, we will explore the complex Question of Theodicy from the Ancient Sages. Underlying this topic is the problem of evil or the question "Why there is suffering in the world?"
Before we get into this complex topic, I want to first orient our minds toward the purpose of addressing this problem and question. With such a conceptual topic, it's easy to lose sight of our orientation and become coldly logical.
Practical & Pastoral Wisdom
For someone who is suffering or has experienced great loss, this topic is not simply a fun conceptual exploration. It’s deeply personal and painful, striking a nerve that is not a clean rational question and answer. In other words, a perfectly logical answer will not necessarily help.
As Paul says, we weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice (Rom 12:15).
Now, there is a time for truth, particularly truths that are difficult to swallow or that put us in our place. But we must strive to be wise about our implementation. Jesus cared for both the truth and people. Both must be an essential consideration for us.
So, practically, for the believer, the faithful, we must disciple them with good thinking on theodicy before tragedy hits so they are more prepared and can rest on the truth of Scripture and the goodness of God when their grief comes. And in the grief, we share in that grief with them.
For the unbeliever, however, it’s a different situation because we won’t have the opportunity to disciple them before. But we can be a comforting presence and show them the love of Christ as we walk with them in their grief.
In my experience with evangelism, I’ve found that the excuses for rejecting Jesus essentially boil down to two reasons:
They want to be God (want to live how they want)
They can’t believe in a God that allowed (fill in the blank) tragedy to happen to them
In other words, the unbeliever may reject God with all sorts of excuses like science or whatever. But at the heart of their rejection, it's quite likely they simply want to live without accountability or that they have a deep pain. They live with this pain and blame God for it. This can even lead to hate.
Alright, well, let’s get into the topic before us. This is the kind of topic that some know a lot about but most know little to none. So, I think it’s helpful to consider some key terms and ideas related to the topic of theodicy first.
Overview of Terms and Ideas
Our topic here is this ominous and fancy-sounding word “Theodicy,” which typically means something like “a defense of God.” It has a long history with many many contributing voices over the millennia.
This brings about the phrase in this discussion called “The Problem of Evil,” which implies, "How could an all-powerful and all-good being allow evil?" This problem is further broken down into categories of evil. We have two primary types of evil:
Natural evil = natural disasters, death, & disease
Moral evil = human-inflicted
So, the central question or contention is that if …
God is not able to prevent evil, he lacks the capacity (less than perfect attributes)
God is able to prevent evil but does not, he lacks goodness (character)
In other words, the contention is that God is either limited or unjust or both. That could explain why evil and suffering exist.
Often, the topic is stated more simply as, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” Perhaps you’ve thought this. I would imagine most people have at some point, whether Christian or not.
A simplistic answer commonly given in biblical communities goes something like, “Well, is anyone good? Is anyone innocent? Didn’t Paul tell us that no one is good in Rom 3.” And certainly, there is some truth to this. Yet, the atheist or sufferer may respond, “What about children or infants or even the pre-born?”
I’ve heard this answered with a deterministic (Calvinist) response that all humans are born into sin and guilt and therefore deserve the suffering and will endure eternal damnation as well.
Others, however, posit that while all humans are born into a fallen world, there is an age of accountability or moral culpability that is necessary. Thus, though the child endures evil for now, their death leads them to heaven quickly, resulting in a type of grace.
But, still, it may be asked, well what about moral evil inflicted on the innocent that does not lead to death? For instance, what about a child that is raped but goes on to live a full life? These people so often struggle with lifelong afflictions and sorrows.
As you can see, this is difficult and forces us to really wrestle with the problem of evil, not only in its worst example but even in those that touch all of us.
So, let’s look at a few common ways people have approached this question of theodicy, though there are many more out there.
Freewill Explanation
In this line of reasoning, the possibility of free agents who are capable of evil is better than robots without evil or the capacity for evil. Saint Augustine is an early proponent of this approach, strongly defended more recently by Plantinga, a modern philosopher. He quotes Augustine saying,
“God can create a more perfect universe by permitting evil. A really top-notch universe requires the existence of free, rational, and moral agents; and some of the free creatures He created went wrong. But the universe with the free creatures it contains and the evil they commit is better than it would have been had it contained neither the free creatures nor this evil” (Plantinga, “The Free Will Defense,” in The Analytic Theist [1998], p. 25).
As an example, we see a sense of this free will appeal in Deut 30:19-20, “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life.”
“Soul-Making Theodicy” or Testing of Faith and Development
There is also an approach referred to by many names, popularly called “Soul making theodicy.” This view holds that evil is a tool in the hands of a wise God in order to shape his people. So, what may seem evil to us is in fact a grace, either for developing or confirming true faith.
The modern theologian Karl Barth offered this view regarding Job, quoted by Ticciati,
“Job’s self is the process of its probing. But this means that his obedience, sanctification, or integrity is best understood, not primarily about being or becoming anything, nor primarily about doing anything, but about being transformed. Job’s integrity is constituted by his ongoing transformation” (Ticciati, Job and the Disruption of Identity, p. 170).
As an example, we see hints of this view in James and Romans.
James 1:2-4 “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
Rom 5:3-5 “We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”
Non-Theodicy (Mysterious)
The next category is a rejection of theodicy. For proponents of this view, theodicy is not something humans should endeavor to ask. There is a mysteriousness to God and the world. One must only trust. John Yoder argued in this vein that any attempt at a theodicy is simply wrong. It’s even immoral and an affront to question God from the human perspective.
“Where do you get the criteria by which you evaluate God? … If God be God, theodicy is an oxymoron …theodicy is idolatry.” (Yoder, “Trinity Versus Theodicy: Hebraic Realism and the Temptation to Judge God,” [1996])
The Bible has a few instances of this view, such as in Rom 9:20-21 (Isa 29:16, 45:9, 64:8; Jer 18:6) “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay.”
Anti-Theodicy
Alternatively, some have argued for an “Anti-theodicy,” which says that offering a protest or complaint against suffering is justified. This is perhaps best found in some of the Psalms, often in the form of a lament.
Psalm 22:1 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?”
Retributive theology
Perhaps the most pervasive version of theodicy is the idea of Retributive Justice or Theology. This view says “You get what you deserve” and is basically a Karma-type perspective. Evil is simply a natural or just result. This is a common view among many Eastern religions and ancient peoples. Biblically speaking, there is a sense that justice will be served, either in this life or the afterlife. The principle of justice is a staple in Biblical theology. But is it absolute?
Prov 11:5 “The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.”
Prov 10:3 “The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked.”
Gal 6:7-8 “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
As we can see for all of these views, there are biblical passages that seem to support them. This implies that the answer must be complex and beyond simple explanation. The Bible espouses a spectrum of views and stories on the topic rather than a simplistic bumper-sticker slogan.
Well, we are now ready to begin considering the question of justice and theodicy from the biblical sages, and by sages I mean the wisdom literature.
Suffering from the perspective of:
There are a few important ideas for us to have in mind when thinking about suffering. The Bible is a complex book that presents an assortment and symphony of complementary ideas and perspectives, as we’ve already seen. Yet, to the untrained ear, they may seem more like a cacophony!
While we could address theodicy from any book of the Bible, the most direct and appropriate place is from the wisdom literature. In these books, the problem of evil and suffering is addressed but with different purposes and perspectives.
In Job: God permits suffering in order to test, though according to his own purpose as God, which is a common motif throughout the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Israel, etc).
In Ecclesiastes: we see a perspective of “life under the sun,” or without divine knowledge. It seems unjust, disordered, chaotic. But in spite of this, we must fear Yhwh and practice humble obedience, no matter who we are.
In Proverbs: we see an idealistic view of the world with generally true principles. Idealistically, suffering is due to foolishness, which encompasses evil. Thus, each person receives an appropriate reward. The counter to suffering and foolishness is fear of Yhwh and wisdom, which leads to blessing.
Furthermore, in the Rest of OT: there is a prevailing picture that God alone is the creator, a king (implying a judge), a father (implying a teacher), & a savior (implying good, merciful, compassionate).
There is also the idea of Covenantal or Communal Responsibility: while suffering may be purely individual, there is the possibility of corporate judgment or discipline. We sometimes miss this because of the English, when it changes you from singular to plural. Some judgments or discipline are specific to a person’s individual choices but some are judgments or discipline for everyone within a group.
This corporate identity view is particularly difficult for us in modern, liberal societies, since we are so deeply immersed in cultures of personal autonomy. And although the Bible definitely does affirm personal responsibility (Deut 24:16; Jer 31:30; Ezek 18:20), it also holds to a corporate view as well. Again, this is difficult for us but the reality for much of biblical history and even many cultures today.
Continued in part 2 ....
