The term evil relates to those things that are morally wrong and reprehensible. Theodicy, meaning “the problem of evil,” is considered a theological/philosophical quandary. Its roots stem from ancient theological works declaring the goodness of divinity, despite the existence of evil (Ehrman, God’s Problem). The term was coined by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) in his Essais de Théodicée.[1]  The greatest challenge historically to Christianity is the problem of evil: How can an all-powerful, all-loving God tolerate evil and suffering? He must not be able to stop it, or if He can, He doesn’t want to. In either case, it proves He doesn’t exist as Christians believe.[2]

The Torah teaches how Adam and Eve introduced sin into the world—no explanation is given as to why sin was allowed to enter the world. God later allowed the Israelites to endure evil and overcome it because of the covenant He made with them at Mount Sinai. Theodicy is a common theme in Old Testament writings:

•  Abraham asks the Lord: “Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right?” (Gen 18:25).

•  Sacrifices were often considered efficacious in preventing woe in the Old Testament (Kraus, Sacrifice).

•  Moses asks that the Lord write him out of the record of history in Exod 32:32 after His massacring of those who constructed the golden calf at the base of Mount Sinai (Horeb).

•  Amos 3:6; Jer 12:1; Ezek 18 brought up the idea of God causing woe.

•  Isaiah 45:7 says of God: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

•  Jonah prefers God’s justice over His mercy when related to the Gentiles at Nineveh, but God contends it is because Jonah did not create them (Jon 4:9–11).

The book of Job deals directly with the subject of theodicy. The Israelites believed a doctrine known as retributional theology, in which sin resulted in punishment. In chapter 1, God gives Satan (שָּׂטָן, satan; “adversary”) permission to tempt Job—an upright man—only up to certain points to see how Job reacts. The subsequent narrative of Job and his interactions with friends presents the classic problem of theodicy: How can a good, all-knowing God allow evil to happen to someone as upright as Job? No answer is given—God allowed it to happen to Job based on His sovereignty. Job shows that not all evil is a punishment for sin.[3]

 

Job is the fullest development in Scripture of the issue referred to by theologians and philosophers as “the problem of evil” or “theodicy.” Simply put, the matter is this: since humans, especially the seemingly innocent, suffer pain and evil, then what kind of God must there be? Logic suggests one of three answers: (1) God is righteous, but he is not powerful enough to prevent suffering; (2) God is all-powerful, but he is not truly good and has elements of evil in his nature; or (3) all pain and evil is in fact deserved by the sufferer and sent by God (in other words, the truly innocent do not suffer).

The biblical view finds these answers unacceptable, and the book of Job wrestles with the alternative. Job reveals a wider arena than humanity can observe. The conflict of the ages between God and Satan must in the end demonstrate both the righteousness and supremacy of God. He lets the innocent suffer to demonstrate that in his sovereignty he receives glory even when his people suffer and persevere in faith without understanding why. From a merely human point of view, the answer is that there is no answer given to the problem of evil. From a divine perspective, the answer is that God’s glory is served even when evil is permitted. (Christ’s death is God’s ultimate answer to the problem of evil.) Those who study Job today should interpret it in view of its original purpose.[4]

The New Testament shows how God uses and allows evil for His greater purposes. It teaches how believers can live in the strength and grace God gives. Three approaches are given in the New Testament literature concerning evil and how believers may understand its presence in the world.

1.   Evil is a natural repercussion of free human choices. Romans 2:3–5 explains how persons who practice evil do so out of the hardness of their hearts. While this approach does explain the evil actions caused by the evil choices of humans in the world, it does not explain every form of evil, such as painful deaths caused by natural events.

2.   Evil may be used by God to help shape a believer and sanctify them further (1 Cor 9:24–27; Heb 12:3–13). Human suffering comes as God either directs or permits suffering to teach. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul states that God disciplines those He loves. As persons suffer, God is bringing about discipline and maturity in their lives. They must walk by faith to eventually understand what is happening.

3.   Though evil may be carried out and performed, God will one day execute justice and fairness on all evildoers (John 14:1–3 and 2 Cor 4:16–18). The suffering in this world is small against the perspective of eternity. All suffering and wrongs will be righted at the end times when God will judge the world.[5]

 

God is separate from all evil and is in no way responsible for it. Moral evil arises from man’s sinful inclinations (Jas. 1:13–15). Israel repeatedly ‘did evil’ and suffered its consequences (Jdg. 2:11; 1 Ki. 11:6, etc.). Behind all history is a spiritual conflict with evil powers (Eph. 6:10–17; Rev. 12:7–12), ‘the evil one’ being the very embodiment of wickedness (Mt. 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38; Jn. 17:15; Eph 6:16; 2 Thes. 3:3; 1 Jn 2:13–14; 3:12; 5:18–19). Satan’s power is under divine control (cf. Jb. 1–2), and will finally be broken (Heb. 2:14; Rev. 12:9–11).

God is against evil, but its existence is often a stumbling-block to belief in a God of love. It can only be attributed to the abuse of free-will on the part of created beings, angelic and human. God’s whole saving activity is directed to deal with evil. In his life, Christ combated its manifestations of pain and sorrow (Mt. 8:16–17); but the cross is God’s final answer to the problem of evil. His love was supremely demonstrated there (Rom. 5:8; 8:32) in the identification of the Lord with the suffering world as the Sin-bearer. The moral change effected in men by the gospel is evidence of the reality of Christ’s triumph over all evil powers (Col. 2:15; 1 Jn. 3:8), and therefore of the final victory of God. Evil will be eliminated from the universe, and the creation will share redeemed man’s glorious destiny. Both physical and moral evil will be banished eternally (Rev. 21:1–8).[6]



[1] D. A. Neal, "Theodicy" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[2] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 166.


[3] D. A. Neal, "Theodicy" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[4] Kendell H. Easley, Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding the Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2002), 112.


[5] D. A. Neal, "Theodicy" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[6] G. C. D. Howley, "Evil" In , in New Bible Dictionary, ed. D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard et al., 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 349.

  The Augustinian doctrine that the election of some people to salvation on the basis of God’s sovereign choice rather than on human merit. The stronger view, known as double predestination, holds that God elects some for salvation and damns others, while the more moderate view, known as single predestination, holds that God only elects some for salvation while others are passed over and left in their sin. While most Reformers agreed on the elect, views differed on the non-elect.[1]

The Reformed view sees election as unconditional. Classically associated with Augustine and John Calvin, this view understands God as choosing individuals for salvation. Differing opinions exist concerning when this choice occurred (e.g., before or after the Fall) and whether this choice includes the direct or indirect condemnation of the non-elect. The emphasis of this view is generally upon the depravity of humankind, and their inability to contribute anything to their salvation.

Others view election as conditional. This position (often called Arminian) emphasizes people’s free will and their need for repentance and faith in order to receive God’s gift. Under this view, God has predetermined the conditions for salvation, but does not orchestrate who will meet these conditions. In other words, God has foreordained the necessary characteristics of His people but has not chosen the constituent members of that people.[2]

The verb elect means “to select, or choose out.” The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28–39; Eph. 1:3–14; 2 Thess. 2:13–14; 2 Tim. 1:9–10). This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and matter for endless praise, that he should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when his choice involved the giving of his own Son to suffer as sin-bearer for the elect (Rom. 8:32).[3]

A mediating position between the Reformed and Arminian views seeks to retain a belief in God’s choosing and humankind’s free choice. It suggests that God chose those whom He knew would “meet the requirements” of repentance from sins and faith in Jesus. God’s foreknowledge and election are thus integrated with the free choice of humanity.

Other views describe the doctrine solely in corporate terms. The emphasis here is on God’s creation of a people rather than His calling of individuals. Where individual calling is in view, it is generally seen as a calling unto a task rather than a calling unto salvation. This view holds God’s election of a people as unconditional in a corporate sense, and unlimited in an individual sense. His choice of a people, and what that people will be and do, has been made—but He has not predetermined who will be a part of that people.[4]


 



[1] George Thomas Kurian, Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary: The Authoritative Resource on the Christian World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001).


[2] A. Chadwick Thornhill, "Election" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[3] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993).


[4] A. Chadwick Thornhill, "Election" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).

 

            The tension between the Sovereignty of God and the exercise of human will is the age old question of theology and ethics. What is ordained by God and what ethics acts is man responsible for? The ability to choose between good and evil without reference to the grace of God or any external constraint or imposed necessity. Normally, the issue pertains to the question of free will after the Fall. The apparent conflict between the exercise of free will and the sovereign omnipotence of God is the subject of endless theological debates, between Augustinianism and Pelagianism in the early church and between Calvinism and Arminianism in the latter-day church. Augustinianism held that after the Fall the will is inherently enslaved and corrupted by original sin. Calvinism held that God has a predetermined plan for each human being. In matters of salvation Calvinism emphasizes the weakness of the will and the power of sin. Both taught the liberating power of grace.[1]  Predestination is among the most important and controversial matters with which Christians, as well as adherents to other monotheistic religions professing divine sovereignty (e.g., Judaism and Islam), have historically grappled. In the Old Testament, predestination is a facet of Yahweh’s reign over all that He created and sustains. Yahweh is the ruler of all history who can infallibly declare the future before it happens (Isa 48:3–5; Dan 4:35), while other gods are the powerless, ignorant, and lifeless creations of human beings (Isa 41:21–24; 44:9–20; Jer 10:1–16). Yahweh predestined the nation of Israel among all the peoples on earth to be His chosen and holy people (Deut 7:6; 14:2), a light to the rest of the world[2].  The best known and most loved New Testament summary of the gospel is Ephesians 2:8–9, with its emphasis on grace and faith. Ephesians also notes God’s delight in electing persons to salvation. The language of predestination to eternal life is pronounced (1:5, 11), as is Paul’s notion that “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (5:25). (The long-standing theological dispute about divine election—predestination—is a matter of discerning the basis of God’s choice. All students who take the Bible seriously affirm divine predestination; the debate is simply over its basis.)[3]

            These ideas lead to thoughts on ethics and how the Divine interacts with them.  The key, of course, is that God’s will determines the norms. The basis of his choice, however, is understood differently depending on the theory. Divine command theories can be roughly divided on this matter in terms of the question raised pointedly in Plato’s Euthyphro. That dialogue discusses whether an act is right because God wills it, or whether God wills it because he knows it is right. Divine command theories vary in their answer to Plato’s question, but during the Middle Ages divine command theorists typically chose the former option. A prime example of such a theory from medieval times is William of Ockham’s. According to Ockham, whatever God wills must be done simply because he says so. If God had wanted, he could have ordered men to obey the opposite of the Ten Commandments. Even now he can rescind those laws and will their opposite.

On the contemporary scene there are proponents of the divine command theory. Some give the impression that God chooses his commands completely arbitrarily; others hold that God’s choices are not purely arbitrary, though they do not always explain God’s rationale for his choices.

In addition, some ethicists hold a modified divine command theory. Robert M. Adams is a well-known proponent of such a view. He follows divine command theories in that he claims that ethical prescriptions say something about God’s will and commands. On the other hand, Adams says every statement of ethical right and wrong presupposes that “certain conditions for the applicability of the believer’s concepts of ethical right and wrong are satisfied.” Among those conditions is that God is love. Thus, Adams’s theory amounts to the following: “x is ethically wrong” means “x is contrary to the commands of a loving God.” For Adams this implies that while it is logically possible for God to command cruelty for its own sake, it is unthinkable that he would do so.[4]

 



[1] George Thomas Kurian, Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary: The Authoritative Resource on the Christian World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001).


[2] Kirk R. MacGregor, "Predestination" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[3] Kendell H. Easley, Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding the Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2002), 298-99.


[4] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 26.