User:Nageh/Theodicy and the Bible (draft rewrite)

Theodicy, the “vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil”, is a central topic in theological and philosophical discussions of the Bible. The Bible has not only been a significant influence on Western thinking about God and evil, but directly raises the issue of theodicy by its portrayals of God as inflicting evil and by its accounts of people who question God’s goodness by angry indictments.

Justification for the presence of evil can be found in the Bible itself; in some cases, evil is described as reconcilement for good. In the Book of Deuteronomy, inflicted evil is generally ascribed to a retribution for sin. Despite of these arguments, the Bible provides no definitive theodicy. Its assertions of God’s righteousness are refuted in other passages, and the retribution theodicy of Deuteronomy is contradicted by the innocent suffering of Job. These are fairly strong statements of fact: is there scholarly consensus on these matters, or is this just Brueggemann's interpretation?

The often-used free will theodicy lays the blame for all moral evil and some natural evil on humanity. This theodicy interacts with the Bible at its core: the meaning of “free will” and with what kind of freedom of will God endowed humanity at the Creation. short summary of the issues of free will theodicy presented

The proper interpretation of the Bible in relation to the theodicy issues of God and evil has been and still is the subject of intense debates, and no agreement is in sight. These debates are currently exemplified by the debates between open theism and classical theism. very short summary of their distinction and its bearing on theodicy.

God and evil
The Bible contains numerous examples of God inflicting evil, both in the form of “moral evil” resulting from “man’s sinful inclinations” and the “physical evil” of suffering. The two uses of the word evil, drawn from Scripture, parallel the Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions of the word as (a) “morally evil” and (b) “discomfort, pain, or trouble.”

The Bible sometimes portrays God as inflicting evil in the generic sense:
 * “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things (Isaiah 45:5-7 abr KJV).”
 * “The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts” (1 Samuel 2:6-7).
 * “Does disaster [lit evil] befall a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6).

In other cases, the word “evil” refers to suffering. Suffering results from either (a) “‘moral’ evil, due to human volition” or (b) “‘physical’ evil, directly due to nature.” The Bible portrays God as inflicting evil in both senses because its writers “regarded God as the ultimate Cause of evil.”

Examples of suffering caused by natural evil are:
 * After Naomi’s husband and two sons died, she lamented, “The Almighty has brought calamity [lit evil] upon me” (Ruth 1:21).
 * “I [God] struck you with blight and mildew; I laid waste your gardens and your vineyards. I sent among you a pestilence. I killed your young men with the sword” (Amos 4:9-10 abr).
 * “Who makes [mortals] seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11).
 * “The Lord struck the people with a very great plague” (Numbers 11:33).

Examples of suffering caused by moral evil include:
 * Moses complained to God, “O Lord, why have you mistreated [lit done evil to] this people? Since I first came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has mistreated [lit done evil to] this people” (Exodus 5:22-23).
 * The crucifixion was portrayed as “determined” and done “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23). The perpetrators of the crucifixion were “anointed” by the “Sovereign Lord to do whatever [his] hand and [his] plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:24-28 abr).
 * Regarding “those who do not believe,” Peter affirmed that “they disobey the word, as they were destined [by God] to do” (1 Peter 2:7-8).

In understanding the role of God in inflicting evil the biblical God is portrayed both as a sovereign God and as an active God. The Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology describes a sovereign God and finds that the “divine, sovereign, and benevolent control of all things by God is the underlying premise of everything that is taught in the Scriptures.” The New Bible Dictionary adds that the biblical God “guides and governs all events, circumstances, and free acts of angels and men.”

Patrick D. Miller describes an active God, and observes that “there is no getting away from the fact that the Bible, from beginning to end, speaks of God's acting in the world in various ways.” Walter A. Elwell finds that God, in his activity, “works across the whole spectrum of human action. . . sometimes by directing evil.”

The Bible's portrayals of God as a sovereign and active God “directing evil” create the need for a theodicy for those who believe in the biblical God. As Barry Whitney observes, “it is the believer in God, more so than the skeptic who is forced to come to terms with the problem of evil.”

Conflicting interpretations
The interpretation of the Bible in relation to the theodic issues of God and evil often gives rise to contradicting viewpoints. William Yarchin observes that “contemporary interpreters approach the Bible from many directions and produce different results.” To illustrate, Yarchin pictures a shelf full of religious books, “none saying the same things but all presented as reliable interpretations of the Bible.” Conflicting interpretations of the Bible is not merely a contemporary phenomenon because Yarchin’s study goes on to exemplify “the many ways in which the Bible has been read for over two thousand years.” Robert Morgan characterizes these conflicting interpretations as an “unfinished debate about biblical authority and the nature of theological interpretation” that engenders “a church deeply divided on these matters today.” Marcus Borg counts the conflict in biblical interpretation as “the single greatest issue dividing Christians in North America today.”

A prominent example of conflicting biblical interpretations exists in the current debate between proponents of open theism and proponents of classical theism. '''source could be added on the conflict between open and classical theism. DONE BY VEJLEFJORD.'''

Classical theism’s Mark R. Talbot ascribes evil to God. Talbot interprets the Bible as teaching that “God’s foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events,” and he adds, “this is what Scripture explicitly claims.” Talbot quotes Isaiah 45:7 in which God says, “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity [lit evil], I am the LORD, who does all these things.”

In opposition to classical theism, open theism’s Gregory Boyd, in his God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, counters that "divine goodness does not completely control or in any sense will evil." As does Talbot, Boyd cites Isaiah 45:7. Along with the passage, Boyd quotes Claus Westermann who interprets the passage as saying that “each and every thing created, each and every event that happens, light and darkness, weal and woe, are attributed to [God], and to him alone.” However, Boyd contradicts Westermann by interpreting the passage as applying only to its immediate context and as “not concerned with God’s cosmic creative activity.”

Theodic issues of evil
The need for a discussion on theodic issues of evil is intensified by biblical indictments of God coupled with expressions of anger at God, both of which question God’s righteousness. Some examples include:


 * Moses indicted God for mistreating his people: when Pharaoh treated the people cruelly, Moses questioned God, “Lord, why have you mistreated [lit done evil to] this people?” (Exodus 5:22).
 * Moses indicted God for not enabling obedience: “The Lord has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear” (Deuteronomy 29:4).
 * Naomi indicted God because he brought calamity upon her by the death of her husband and two sons: “The Almighty has dealt bitterly with me. The Almighty has brought calamity [lit evil] upon me” (Ruth 1:20-21 abr).
 * Elijah indicted God because God had killed the son of the widow who befriended him: “O Lord my God, have you brought calamity [lit evil] even upon the widow with whom I am staying, by killing her son?” (1 Kings 17:20).
 * Job indicted God because God had brought evil upon him by enemy attacks and natural disasters (Job 42:11): “You have turned cruel to me; with the might of your hand you persecute me” (Job 30:21).
 * Jeremiah indicted God for deceiving his people: “Ah, Lord God, how utterly you have deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘It shall be well with you,’ even while the sword [the Assyrian army] is at the throat!” (Jeremiah 4:10).
 * God was indicted for injustice in favoring treacherous people: “Let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? You plant them, and they take root; they grow and bring forth fruit” (Jeremiah 12:1-2).

Responses to the biblical indictments and anger directed at God range from denying any grounds for the indictments and anger to recommending anger toward God.

Rabbi Harold Kushner finds no grounds for either indictments or anger toward God because “our misfortunes are none of His doing.” Open theist Gregory Boyd agrees that "divine goodness does not completely control or in any sense will evil."

In contrast to Kushner and Boyd, classical theist in John Piper’s interpretation of Scripture, God is the sovereign “Lord of life and death,” and “none lives and none dies but by God’s sovereign decree.” For this position, Piper quotes Deuteronomy 32:39 in which God says, “see now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” Nevertheless, Piper believes that “it is never right to be angry with God.” However, he adds that a person who is angry with God should tell God.

Other writers commend anger toward God. Based on his study of Habakkuk, Leonard Pine concludes that “far from being a sin, proper remonstration with God is the activity of a healthy faith relationship with Him.” Pastoral theologian Henri J. M. Nouwen descries spiritual benefits in anger toward God: “in both the Old and New Testaments, it is clear that only by expressing our anger and hatred directly to God will we come to know the fullness of both his love and our freedom.”

Biblical interpretations of God and evil
There is no one biblical interpretation of God’s role in the onset of the evil of suffering or of moral evil. Neither is there one biblical interpretation regarding the purpose that suffering might serve. Rather, Bart D. Ehrman finds that “the Bible contains many and varied answers to the problem of why there is suffering in the world,” and “many of these answers are at odds with one another.”

Many of the various biblical understandings of God and evil are delineated in the Bible’s “responses” (James Crenshaw) or “approaches” (Daniel Harrington) or “answers” (Bart Ehrman) to evil that these biblical scholars have identified. Findings of these scholars are used in the following section.

Alternative concepts of God
The Bible reports various concepts regarding God in relation to evil. These concepts range from atheism to malevolent gods to a God with a dark side: not that all these concepts are generally accepted in the Bibleclarify.


 * God is denied in favor of atheism by the "wicked" and "fools" who think that “there is no God” (Psalm 10:4;14:1). But the atheistic solution is rejected by the Psalmist who reports it.
 * Satan (“the profoundly evil adversary of God and humanity” ) sometimes replaces God as the protagonist. Satan had crippled a woman whom Jesus healed (Luke 13:16), and Satan constrained Ananias to lie (Acts 5:3). However, for Crenshaw, Satan “lifts the onus from God’s shoulders only slightly, for God has ultimate control over Satan.”
 * Other gods are sometimes blamed for evil. Psalm 82 denounces “the gods” who do injustice and exhorts God to take charge. These gods offer God the same minimal relief that Satan does because the dominant position of the Bible is that “the Lord your God is supreme over all gods” (Deuteronomy 10:17 GNT).
 * Suggestions that God has a dark side are found in the Bible. Crenshaw finds this “dark side of the deity’s nature” when the God who demanded obedience also made people stray from his ways (Isa 63:17).
 * David Blumenthal finds an “abusing God” whose actions are “sometimes evil.” Blumenthal also suggests that the theodic conundrum can be resolved is by “a theodicy that admits that God can indeed do evil.”

Evil for a good cause
The Bible not only contains various concepts of God in relation to evil, it also contains various interpretations of evil in relation to its victims.


 * Hardship is sometimes interpreted as teaching. We “endure hardship as discipline [or teaching].” It seems “painful,” but “it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace” (Hebrews 12:7, 11 NIV).
 * Affliction is sometimes interpreted as forming character. Paul interpreted his affliction’s purpose as “to keep me from becoming conceited” (2 Corinthians 12:7 NIV). When he and Timothy suffered “hardship,” Paul believed that it happened so “that we might not rely on ourselves but on God” (2 Corinthians 1:8-9 NIV).
 * Suffering is sometimes interpreted as testing. James counsels that “trials” are a “testing” that “produces endurance” and contributes to becoming “mature and complete” (James 1:2-4).
 * Trials are sometimes interpreted as leading to a heavenly reward. Both James 1:12 and Revelation 2:10 promise “the crown of life” for those who persevere under trial.
 * Scripture sometimes finds benefits for others engendered through someone’s suffering.
 * God sent Joseph to Egypt by way of his brothers’ evil deed of selling him as a slave for the beneficial purpose of feeding people (“to preserve life”) during a famine (Genesis 45:5).
 * Hosea’s suffering that was inflicted on him by God’s command to marry “an adulterous wife” with “children of unfaithfulness” served the good purpose of teaching others that they were “guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the Lord” (Hosea 1:2-3 NIV).
 * By their suffering for their sins, the early Israelites taught later generations. As Paul wrote, “these things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us” (1 Corinthians 10:6-11).

The above passages show that the Bible finds that sometimes good emerges from evil. Milton Crum comments that, by its examples of good consequences from evil, Scripture can lessen the weight of suffering. But the Bible’s ad hoc positive interpretations of evil do not provide a blanket theodicy.

With the various biblical interpretations of God and evil in mind, N. T. Wright “reminds us” that “the scriptures are frustratingly indirect and incomplete in answering questions of theodicy.”

Deuteronomic theodic settlement
In writing about theodicy and the Bible, Walter Brueggemann describes theodicy as a subject that “concerns the question of God’s goodness and power in a world that is manifestly marked by disorder and evil.” He notes that “the Old Testament takes up these human issues” and arrives at a temporary “theodic settlement” in the Book of Deuteronomy. (Walter Brueggemann finds the term “theodicy” to be “unfortunate”, and prefers the term “theodic settlement” to avoid the speculative and rational connotations of the word “theodicy.”) Brueggemann recognizes that biblical authors do not agree on one “theodic settlement” (or theodicy), so he characterizes biblical authors as “negotiating between old theodic settlement and newly voiced theodic challenges.” Therefore, much of the Old Testament is “preoccupied in disputatious ways with theodicy.”

The Book of Deuteronomy
The “theodic settlement” in the Book of Deuternomy interprets all afflictions as just punishment for sin, that is, as retribution. Brueggemann defines “the theological notion of retribution” as “the assumption or conviction that the world is ordered by God so that everyone receives a fair outcome of reward or punishment commensurate with his or her conduct.” Brueggemann points to Psalm One as a succinct summary of this retribution theodicy: “the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish” (Psalm 1:6). Because “retribution is the act of getting what one deserves” it “is closely connected to any discussion of theodicy.”

The Book of Deuteronomy elaborates its “theodic settlement” in Chapter 28. Verse two promises that “blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the Lord your God.” This general promise of blessings is followed by a lengthy list of fourteen specific blessings. But, on the other hand, verse fifteen warns that “if you will not obey the Lord your God. . ., curses shall come upon you.” This general warning of curses is followed by a list of fifty-four specific curses, all of which would fit into the biblical use of the word “evil.”

The Deuteronomic retribution theodic settlement interpreted whatever evils (“curses”) people suffered as just retribution meted out by a just God. However, at least as early as the early 6th century B.C., Jeremiah was asserting that the retribution theodicy was contrary to fact. Jeremiah upbraided God for endowing the wicked with prosperity: “Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? You plant them, and they take root” (Jeremiah 12:1-2).

The Book of Job
The Book of Job delivered the knockout blow to the theodic settlement according to whom?. The date of Job might be contemporaneously with Jeremiah or as late as the 4th century B.C.E.

Job was “a threat to the accepted theology” which was the “theology of retribution.” Job “was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1), but nonetheless he suffered “all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). In the midst of his suffering, Job explicitly contradicted the Deuteronomic theodic settlement: “it is all one; therefore I say, [God] destroys both the blameless and the wicked”(Job 9:22).

Brueggemann’s characterization of biblical authors as “negotiating between old theodic settlement and newly voiced theodic challenges” comes into play when the innocent suffering of Job contradicted the old Deuteronomic theodic settlement. The “old theodic settlement” had asserted (a) that it was only the wicked who suffered affliction and (b) that, furthermore, the wicked always suffered. However, as Brueggemann says, “that set of theological assumptions. . . is not valid in the face of innocent sufferers who can acknowledge no serious guilt and who find nothing of which to repent.”

Brueggemann treats Job as the prime example of the “newly voiced theodic challenges” to the “old theodic settlement.” Not only did Job challenge the Deuteronomic theodic settlement by the fact of his own innocent suffering (Job 1:1; 42:11) and by explicit contradiction of the old settlement (Job 9:22), he interrogated God, “Why do the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?” (Job 21:7). Brueggemann judges the fact that God had no answer to Job’s why? to be so important that “the Book of Job turns on the refusal, unwillingness, or inability of [God] to answer” Job’s query.

Bruggemann explains that the “turn” he sees in the Book of Job is a turn from seeing the ‘right’ as accepting the old theodic settlement. Now, he continues, “perhaps what is ‘right’ is Job’s refusal to concede, and therefore what is celebrated is his entire defiant argument. . . . That is, what Yahweh intends as ‘right’ is that Job (Israel, humankind) should make a legitimate case” before God “without timidity or cowardice” to “carry the human question of justice into the danger zone of God’s holiness.”

The Book of Job and its interpretations are subject to a continuing debate. David Malick’s “Selected Bibliography of the Book of Job” lists forty-five book on the Book of Job from 1878 to 1989, and online book sellers list several more books on Job published since 1989 .fix Amazon ref

Classic vs. open theism
Classical and open theists disagree in their interpretations of the Deuteronomic theodic settlement. That is, they disagree regarding whether the evils of suffering and death can properly be interpreted as retribution for sin. <- this is not a reference for the disagreement between the two factions

From the classical theism side, John Piper asserts the doctrine that God governs all things: “when I say that God is sovereign [what I mean] is not merely that God has the power and right to govern all things, but that he does govern all things.” Piper makes this assertion to “celebrate the sovereignty of God over Satan.”

Piper’s doctrine that God “does govern all things,” includes the retribution doctrine in both general and in specific cases. In general, Piper interprets “all calamities” as “both punishment and purification. . . at the same time.” More specifically, regarding the 2004 Tsunami, Piper believes that “God could have stopped the waves,” but chose not to. In such destruction, for believers, death “is a door to paradise.” For non-believers, “suffering and death are God’s judgment.” With small children who are not “being punished or judged,” God can turn their “suffering or death” to serve “their greater good.” More specifically, Piper interpreted the August 19, 2009, “tornado in Minneapolis” as inflicted by God’s “Providence” to issue a “firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin” (in this case the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s accepting homosexual practices).

Piper takes the retribution doctrine beyond death. Concerning those “who do not obey,” he says, “our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.”

From the open theism stance, Boyd takes issue with Piper’s doctrines about God’s sovereignty and retribution. Boyd begins by taking a stand against “speculating about how God is judging others through natural calamities.” And, after surveying relevant biblical passages, Boyd rhetorically asks, “Why then should we suppose that God is still using tragedies to punish people?”

In opposition to Piper’s God who “govern[s] all things,” Boyd argues for a temporal dualism and warfare between God and the cosmic forces of evil with the result that “divine goodness does not completely control or in any sense will evil.” In Boyd’s interpretation of Scripture, this “warfare worldview” is “the basic worldview of biblical authors.” Therefore, Boyd concludes that “the Bible does provide an answer to our most important question — why we suffer. Ultimately, it’s because the world is held hostage to cosmic forces of evil.”

Regarding the dynamics of “how God punishes sin,” Boyd says that God punishes by “turning people over to experience the consequences of their decisions.” Thus, in the light of Scripture, Boyd interprets a “consequence” that might be caused by natural processes or history’s ‘wheels of justice’ as God’s doing.

Positive theodicy
The Deuteronomic “theodic settlement” (i.e., the Deuteronomic theodicy) amounted to a standard syllogism: major premise: God is a just God; minor premise: a just God would treat people justly; conclusion: righteous people would be blessed; wicked people would be cursed. The Deuteronomic syllogism was falsifiable because its conclusion was proved false by such factual observations as Job’s “it is all one; therefore I say, he destroys both the blameless and the wicked” (9:22) and as Ecclesiastes’ “the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil” (9:2-3). So, in the Bible, “that theodic settlement” was “placed in jeopardy by the honest recognition that disobedient people receive blessings and obedient people receive curses.”

The Bible also contains a positive theodicy based on its ipse dixit assertions of the justice and righteousness of God. <- an appropriate reference covering positive theodicy would be desirable here

A positive theodicy does not require rational argument because by definition it is posited. Neither does a positive theodicy require factual verification because “positive” is defined as “independent of circumstances.” <- this tangents original research However, as a “branch of theology,” a positive theodicy, must (as does all “positive theology”) “prove its theses by conclusive arguments drawn from Scripture and Tradition.” The positive theodicy that asserts the justice and righteousness of God meets these requirements because it is “conclusively drawn” from Scripture and Tradition.<- maybe the same main ref on positive theodicy could be cited here again

Examples in Scripture
Scripture provides a basis for its positive theodicy by its categorical assertions that “God the Father is righteous (just).”


 * Psalm 11:7 asserts that “the Lord is righteous” in the New International Version or “the Lord is just” in the Douay-Rheims Version.
 * Psalm 145:17 asserts that “the Lord is righteous in all his ways” in the New International Version or “the Lord is just in all his ways” in the New Revised Standard Version.
 * In Isaiah 45:21, God describes himself as a “a just God” in the King James Version or as “a righteous God” in the New Revised Standard Version.

Text like the following could be placed in a footnote (similar to a reference, but would look like this: [fn 1], for example).

The interchange between the words “justice” and “righteousness” in biblical and theodic writings results from the following fact.

When we translate the Greek words based on the stem dikai- into English we make use of two sets of words based on the stems, just and right. So we have just, justice, justify and right, righteous, righteousness, rightwise (old English). The use of two sets of English words for the one set of Greek words sometimes causes difficulties for students of the Bible.

Therefore, the word “theodicy” could be defined as either the “justification of God” or the “righteousing of God.” '''<- This has a taste of original research since a conclusion is drawn. Try to avoid.'''

Examples delivered by tradition
<-- not sure I understand this really

Tradition’s basis for a positive theodicy resides in such theological assertions as John Calvin’s “the will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it.” Or, in Roman Catholic doctrine, one of the Divine Attributes is “infinite goodness,” and his infinite goodness “is the primary and necessary object” of whatever God wills to happen.

Criticism
The Bible’s positive theodicy is accepted by some scholars in the field and rejected by others.

A biblical positive theodicy settles the issue among scholars who hold the Bible to be incontrovertible. For classical theist Mark Talbot, because “Scripture says” it, God “will always do what is right.”

Because classical theists accept the Bible’s positive theodicy, theodic arguments lie beyond their interests. The "Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)", a core document for classical theism, qualifies God with words like “perfection,” “righteous,” and “goodness.” Such a God needs no justification. In classical theism’s Beyond the Bounds, the word “theodicy” is not listed in the Index and its only uses are in arguments against open theist Greg Boyd’s theodicy.

Some scholars in the field of religion reject positive theodicy’s verdict regarding the righteousness (justice) of God and embrace agnosticism or atheism. For William L. Rowe, “the problem of evil can legitimately function as an argument for atheism.” An “argument for atheism” convinced biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, who came to the point that he “could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler.”