Revelation 16:1-7
Then I heard a mighty voice from the Temple say to the seven angels, “Go your ways and pour out on the earth the seven bowls containing God’s wrath.”
2So the first angel left the Temple and poured out his bowl on the earth, and horrible, malignant sores broke out on everyone who had the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue.
3Then the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it became like the blood of a corpse. And everything in the sea died.
4Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs, and they became blood. 5And I heard the angel who had authority over all water saying,
“You are just, O Holy One, who is and who always was,
because you have sent these judgments.
6Since they shed the blood
of your holy people and your prophets,
you have given them blood to drink.
It is their just reward.”
7And I heard a voice from the altar, saying,
“Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty,
your judgments are true and just.”
This passage [Revelation 16:1-21] announces that God’s judgments are just; the world oppresses God’s children and then wonders why it must suffer so much. Many people today do not like to talk about divine judgment; in their view, that is not what a god is for. But Santa Claus theology ‘cannot cope with the reality of evil’ or seemingly senseless sufferings. To make God kind but never firm (as many liberals have done) is ‘to deny his omnipotence and lordship over a world full of sufferings; facing such hardships without assurance that God has a purpose in them leads to fatalism. A God who never inflicts corporate judgments on the world is not the God of Scripture, but an idol of our own making. As A.W. Tozer observed, ‘when God acts justly He is not doing so to conform to an independent criterion, but simply acting like Himself in a given situation.’
–Craig Keener, The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation
Jeff,
I firmly believe that God is responsible for both good and evil, however I think it is a mistake to categorise the evil God is responsible for as judgement or lesson; to do the former vilifies God, and to do the latter denigrates man’s suffering. I think it is enough to admit God’s actions are beyond our understanding; he is responsible for Evil, but we know not how that is consistent with his Goodness.
I think Keener is talking more about judgment in the end as it says in Revelation. Evil will ultimately be punished and we can take comfort in that.
Jeff
In response to Damian …
We have to define terms when we start to say God is “responsible” for evil. He certainly didn’t create it. God is Light, in Whom there is NO DARKNESS AT ALL. Every GOOD THING given comes down from the Father of Lights. David says, “You are good and do good.” As soon as we start making God equally responsible for good and evil, without carefully defining terms, we make those Biblical statements meaningless. What do we mean when we say God is responsible for good, if we say He is equally responsible for evil?
Wherever evil originates, and however it is used by God, He is certainly NOT the source and spring of it. We should always be careful to make that clear.
On the other hand, if God is not sovereignly in control of all evil, our hope and peace become impossible to maintain. In that case, God could be taken by surprise and we would suffer as a result – against His wishes. There are some fatally dangerous implications in that.
So we’re left with God sovereignly controlling evil for His own good ends, but not creating or producing it Himself. This highlights the fact that His works are beyond our understanding, yet at the same time it places proper Biblical limits on our statements.
Furthermore, if God’s purposes are to teach us and conform us to Christ, He can and will use evil as a tool to bring this about. The New Testament is replete with examples.
Grace & peace,
Derek
Derek,
At a most basic level, if God is in fact God, He is responsible for everything. And that includes evil. This bible says this itself (Isaiah 45:7):
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Judaism is and always has been perfectly ok with this. If you have the issue, it’s not something that can be explained away by saying that he is not responsible for it, because this is His creation, and he is responsible for all aspects of it, otherwise He is not God.
And yes, His works are beyond our understanding. I do not understand the purpose of evil, but I think especially Old Testament reading shows clearly that God is responsible for both sides of the coin.
I don’t know if this helps the discussion or not but I’d like to post some more modern translations of Isaiah 45:7 (the KJV was posted above). I might have more to say but I’d like to let you two discuss if you want.
Isaiah 45:7 NKJV
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’
Isaiah 45:7 NASB
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
Isaiah 45:7 ESV
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 NET
I am the one who forms light
and creates darkness;
the one who brings about peace
and creates calamity.
I am the LORD, who accomplishes all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 TNIV
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Feel free to intercede, Jeff
. It’s your blog!
I’m aware of the more modern translations. From what I understand these translations are tied to the fact that good and evil in the ANE were directly tied to prosperity vs. the uncontrollable disaster. Evil wasn’t considered an ontological force. I’m no Hebrew scholar, so I can’t say more on the matter, but I believe Isaiah 45:7 is an articulation of the fact that if God is God, He must be in control of both Good and Evil. It’s a theological difficulty, but to do otherwise is to say He is not God.
Damian,
I am not saying categorically that God is not “responsible” for evil. I’m okay with that language, because He has certainly permitted evil. In fact, I believe there can be no evil that has not been permitted purposefully by God.
But I’m bothered by any statement that ascribes the origin of evil to God. In my view, Biblical theology depends on the understanding that God is ENTIRELY GOOD. This means that even when He permits evil, He does so for a good purpose – but He does not originate evil from Himself.
It is axiomatic that everything which originates in God is good. If evil originates in God, then evil is good. In that case, evil is no longer evil and all morality is meaningless.
Let’s look at Isaiah 45:7 more closely:
The “calamity” or “disaster” interpretation is warranted by the Hebrew word’s semantic range:
Ra
1) bad, evil
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind-land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
(this from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon. BTW, I’m no Hebrew expert, either. I rely on real scholars for help with Biblical languages)
Granted, the interpretation you are proposing is also semantically possible. But notice the parallellism: “Light” is put against “darkness”, and “evil” is put against “peace” (Heb. SHALOM). This is not the word for what is morally good, but rather it stands for the effect of moral good. So God creates the EFFECTS, which are peace and calamity. That’s different from saying He creates moral evil.
Based on your last comment, I think we’re misunderstanding one another. I’m saying God is responsible for evil in the sense of controlling it (even ordaining it) – but not originating it. Good is entirely caused and controlled by Him, while evil is only permitted and controlled by Him. You seem to be emphasizing His control over evil (and I agree heartily), but I’m concerned with the issue of causes.
There’s some mystery here to be sure, and I won’t begin to imply that I can explain the origin of evil. But I’m Biblically certain that moral evil is not a direct creation of God. My point here is simply to say we have to be careful and make sure we clarify that.
Blessings,
Derek
I think the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it well: God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (3:1)
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin. (5:4)
Derek,
I’m not saying that God being responsible for evil (or ‘creates’ evil, as in Isaiah) is a satisfying theodicy. It isn’t. But nevertheless, it’s a conclusion I have to draw if I believe in a God who indeed created all, is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. What origins do you ascribe to evil? To me, if something else is that powerful, then we are no longer talking a monotheism, but a dualism.
In bringing up translation of ‘ra’, I wasn’t saying that God created moral evil, but that the separation between concepts was not as clear as people seem to think now. How does one define moral evil, anyway? To the writer of Isaiah, it is likely that evil and poverty (or at least the opposite of prosperity) were the same thing.
As to the issue of causes, I feel it’s clear as God is the source of all things, then He must also be the source of evil. As I asked earlier, what origin do you ascribe to evil, if not God? To return to the earlier subject of translation, the reason I have difficulty when speaking of causes, is that evil is not an entity in and of itself (at least to me, not in Old Testament thought), but instead sets of circumstances or actions or events.
I’m thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Thank you. I think the place where we’re miscommunicating, though, is at this semantic level of what we mean by evil. That is, I’m not sure of the existence of an ontological evil, or of an evil as an entity or force. This seems to me to be what you mean by moral evil. Can you define what you mean by ‘moral evil’?
Damian,
I’m enjoying this conversation too. Theodicy is a difficult subject, but there are some good things to be gained in hashing through it. So, let’s see if we can arrive at some consensus on the main points.
You’re asking some good questions and making some great points. I have some thoughts in response, but not a fully developed thesis. Perhaps you’ll be able to help me fill in some gaps. Here’s what I’ve got:
You’ve hinted at a classic definition of evil as not being a “thing” in itself, per se, but more of a phenomenon (this idea was proposed by Augustine, if I remember correctly). Some have suggested that evil is nothing more than the negation of good, exactly as darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. I find this theory highly tenable, but I won’t say I’ve bought into it a hundred percent. I take it as a working theory. The strength of this approach is that it says only good emanates from God, so (ontological) evil really doesn’t exist in the same sense that (ontological) good exists. That upholds the goodness of God and provides a reasonably good definition of evil (no pun intended!).
In answer to your last question: I am using the term “moral evil” in contradistinction to “calamitous” or circumstantial evil. Moral evil arises from a malevolent will (which God does not and cannot possess). Calamitous evil results merely from circumstances that bring about destruction. God’s judgments are calamitously evil and destructive, but they’re still morally good. IOW, there is no malevolent will behind them. They show us Authority engaged in the exercise of justice. I’m proposing that the evil spoken of in Isaiah 45:7 is strictly calamitous, and not in any sense morally evil because it is created by the good God for His good purposes, and executed with good (rather, perfect) motives.
On the origin of evil, I find it amazing that the Bible is entirely silent. This proves beyond doubt that God isn’t out to answer all of our questions. The origin of evil is a divine mystery that we can only speculate about (I wish somebody would prove me wrong on this point – I REALLY DO want to know the answers, just like everyone else). I theorize that God created morally good creatures who had free wills, but their wills became corrupted by selfish desires (through their own free choice), and they exercised their wills in a malevolent way which caused evil to come into existence (quite apart from any direct action on the part of God – but not without His foreknowledge and ordaining permission).
In conclusion, I want to answer this:
You said: “What origins do you ascribe to evil? To me, if something else is that powerful, then we are no longer talking a monotheism, but a dualism.”
This is directly to the point. I think it is quite the opposite. If God was responsible for good and evil in exactly the same way, He Himself would be dualistic rather than good. I want to stress that He is good, and only good.
Evil, according to the Augustinian definition, is nothing more than the negation of good (as darkness is the absence of light). A cloud is not as strong as the sun. A shadow is powerless, it can do nothing but represent the points at which light has been blocked. All that is needed to create moral evil as a will that chooses contrary to God’s Word. The only power needed is free will. If God gave Adam (and before him, Lucifer) a free will, then there does not need to be a supremely powerful will to create moral evil. One puny little bit of contrariness on the part of a free creature is enough. Indeed, Paul says all men were made sinners through the one act of sin. That demonstrates how pervasive evil is, but it never implies that the perpetrators were equal to God. This all goes back to that Westminster quote offered by Stan. I agree wholeheartedly with it (Calvinist that I am).
In summary: Good comes from God, but evil comes from creatures rebelling against His revealed will. God controls all of this, but His will is not the active or direct cause of the evil that is done. He permits evil to be done by others. That’s about as far as I’m willing to say God is “responsible” for evil.
Remember, too, that good is eternal (as an attribute of God). Evil came into being at a point in time, when a created will went contrary to good.
Hope this makes sense. Have I clarified anything? Are we headed in the same direction? Let me know, I’m glad to discuss further. And thanks for your patience.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek,
So, in your understanding (tentatively), evil is the lack of Good; the strength is that it means that onotological evil doesn’t exist. It sidesteps a lot of my arguments with ontological evil because of that.
I accept that the evil spoken of in Isaiah 45:7 is strictly calamitous. However, I am disturbed by the concept that all evil is created for good purposes and executed with good motives. I feel that this deprecates evil and those that suffer due to evil.
The bible is entirely silent on the matter, as you say. My opinion is that this is because the authors of the bible were clear on the matter: If there is only one true God, then He is responsible for everything. They don’t seem to have gone to the point where all temporal evil must be for some kind of eternal or unseen good. And I’m not really willing to go there, for the reasons I mentioned above. But I am willing to accept that evil is God’s responsibility, and be left with the a mess of a theodicy.
I understand your point about good and evil creating a dualism within God; however, I don’t agree. Saying an all powerful God allows evil (for whatever reason), is exactly the same to me as saying He is directly responsible for it. Why do you think that ‘in exactly the same way’ makes a difference?
God gave Adam free will, and that allowed Adam to do evil (sin). Surely it follows that if God created the potential for evil (free will), then he created evil (because it could not exist unless he had created the potential for it).
Your summary: Good comes from God, but evil comes from creatures rebelling against His revealed will. God controls all of this, but His will is not the active or direct cause of the evil that is done. He permits evil to be done by others. That’s about as far as I’m willing to say God is “responsible” for evil.
I think you’ve clarified yourself well. That’s not to say I’ve come around to your point of view: I still think that what you say implicitly states that God creates evil. What I am happy to do (that most people are not), is to accept that God didn’t decide to reveal to us the nature of his relationship with evil, and so I can simply say that God is responsible, and avoid playing a blame game (God? Me? Satan? Everyone else? The US Government?) with the problem of evil.
Does my thinking make sense (beyond the fact that we disagree)?
Damian,
I have just a few clarifications to make. Beyond that, I think it’s probably safe to say we understand each other and we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I’d be curious to hear from Jeff on this, also.
You said: “So, in your understanding (tentatively), evil is the lack of Good; the strength is that it means that onotological evil doesn’t exist.”
I’m not saying ontological evil doesn’t exist at all. Strictly, it exists. But according to the Augustinian view as I understand it, evil doesn’t exist as a “thing,” and it doesn’t exist in the same way that good exists.
You also said: “However, I am disturbed by the concept that all evil is created for good purposes and executed with good motives. I feel that this deprecates evil and those that suffer due to evil.”
So, on the one hand you’re saying God is responsible for evil and is the source of it, but on the other hand you’re saying it is not created for good purposes and with good motives. Doesn’t that equate to saying that God’s motives and purposes aren’t good? To me that is more disturbing than saying that God uses evil to bring about His good purposes. Tell me if I’m misunderstanding you here.
I have no problem with deprecating evil. It’s bad. However, you’re right that we should be very careful when talking about God’s good purposes being accomplished through the evil done by others. Those of who take my perspective have to make sure we emphasize compassion and don’t simply throw academic pat answers at people who are suffering. Remember, though, EVERYONE suffers. So I believe my own sufferings are ordained by God for His good purposes. Romans 8:28 is pertinent here. God works ALL THINGS together for good . . .
You asked: “Why do you think that ‘in exactly the same way’ makes a difference?”
It goes back to the one-sided view that God is ONLY and ENTIRELY good. As Scripture declares: “Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, His love continues forever.” It comes from the conviction that God is all goodness, and beauty, and righteousness, and wisdom – and none of the opposite. All good finds its source and root in God Himself. Even if you or I do something good, we are merely the vessels of His action. Ultimately, all good comes directly from Him. Evil, on the other hand, springs from a resistance to His good will. So God can’t be equally responsible for good and evil, or He is actively working through His creatures to commit evil. The God of the Bible cannot do evil, anymore than He can lie.
You said: “Surely it follows that if God created the potential for evil (free will), then he created evil (because it could not exist unless he had created the potential for it).”
I would consider this a logical leap, and one I would personally not make. To illustrate: if I forge a stainless steel fork and give it to someone, I am not to blame for the way they use it. They may get angry and kill someone with it. But I, the maker of the fork, felt no anger, no malice toward the person who was killed, and had no will to murder. I made the fork with good intentions: for the purpose of eating. Perhaps I knew what would happen, but even that doesn’t make me the one who did it. And what if I knew what would happen, and somehow used infinite wisdom to bring it back around for good purposes. That would make me amazing! God is this amazing, and even more.
I think I understand how you are approaching this. Obviously, our perspectives are very different. But I’ve rarely had such a rousing discussion of theodicy, so thanks for taking the time to work through it. I’m still here if you want to continue, and I’ll try not to be argumentative.
Blessings,
Derek
I think you’re right that we understand each other and will have to agree to disagree. So I’ll just answer your questions:
So, on the one hand you’re saying God is responsible for evil and is the source of it, but on the other hand you’re saying it is not created for good purposes and with good motives. Doesn’t that equate to saying that God’s motives and purposes aren’t good?
No, I think it equates to us not being able to truly understand God’s motives and purposes (a la Isaiah 55:9). I find that many aren’t content to accept mystery in this area (obviously, it leaves holes in theodicy); but I feel that it leaves gaps elsewhere in the theology that are more important to fill.
if I forge a stainless steel fork and give it to someone, I am not to blame for the way they use it. They may get angry and kill someone with it. But I, the maker of the fork, felt no anger, no malice toward the person who was killed, and had no will to murder. I made the fork with good intentions: for the purpose of eating. Perhaps I knew what would happen, but even that doesn’t make me the one who did it. And what if I knew what would happen, and somehow used infinite wisdom to bring it back around for good purposes.
I feel like you’re making a false analogy here, and this is why: A fork, as you say can be made with one use (eating), and used for another unrelated use (murder). Free will, however, by definition is made for deciding whether to do good or ill. And what’s more, before God ‘invented’ free will, there was no potential for evil to be done. I’m aware this won’t persuade you otherwise, but do you understand the difference?
It’s been a pleasure to discuss with you – it’s rare such an involving discussion occurs. I don’t think it’s necessary to continue. I just didn’t want to leave your questions unanswered.
God bless,
Damian
Damian,
Good points, especially on the limitedness of my fork analogy. I have appreciated the interesting discussion, with no “stabbing” at each other, but actual discussion of the issues involved. Truly rare indeed! Thanks.
I suppose we will both agree that no theodicy is complete, and there’s certainly some mystery left in any approach taken.
Blessings,
Derek
I’d be curious to hear from Jeff on this, also.
I’ve been quiet because I’ve enjoyed reading the two of you and Derek is able to express my thoughts much better than me.
All I have to add is that when God created everything, He said it was good. And God is good. I don’t see anywhere where He created good and evil and anything bad. Maybe I’m not accurately expressing exactly what is meant by good in Genesis but I think my general idea holds true.
But God also ordains evil as Lam. 3:37-38 and countless other passages demonstrate.
I agree with Damian in that there are holes in theodicy. Anyone who claims to have all the answers is puffed up.
Thank you for all your great comments. More are always welcome.
Jeff