Andrew has suggested (see, for example, ‘The Lord’s prayer and its eschatological context’) that destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is part of God’s judgement on Israel. The view that God intervenes on earth in this way invites us to ask why he does not also intervene to relieve people form the terrible evils under which they suffer.
In an interview with Rowan Williams, John Humphrys of BBC Radio 4 said
“I’m inviting [you] to convert me, to persuade me if you like that God does in fact exist. I believed that once, but for nearly fifty years I’ve been a journalist and I’ve seen perhaps too much suffering, too many children dying, too much wanton savagery to continue to believe it. A God of mercy, any God, seems out of the question.”
The problem of evil is simply stated: if God is all powerful and God is good without qualification, then there should be no evil in the world. But there is evil in the world so God is either not all powerful or not good without qualification.
What are the evils in question? Usually people think of evil as the deliberate action of human beings: the Nazi death camps or the murderous activities of Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot, or the myriad other lesser evils for which human beings are responsible. But some manifestations of nature are also often thought of as being evil: cancer or Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease; or natural catastrophes such as drought or flood or earthquake or tsunamis.
Discussions of the problem of evil have usually focussed on God’s failure to act in the world. But what about where God does intervene in the world- does this throw any light on the problem of evil? In pursuit of his earthly projects, such as the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt or their establishment in the land of Canaan, God either himself carries out or commands human proxies to perform activities that we would otherwise describe as evils- for example the plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians, or the slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaan. Throughout history, there have been those who have regarded these actions of God’s as calling into question his unqualified goodness.
Other divine interventions on earth, such as Israel’s Babylonian captivity or the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, are considered to be God’s punishment on human beings because of their sin. Often such punishment is represented as the natural consequences of sin which God allows to happen rather than anything that God actually does
“it isn’t the case that God is sitting upstairs a long way away deciding to zap us with some arbitrary punishment, but that, as with Israel in Isaiah’s and Jesus’ day, we will reap the consequences of our own selfish and arrogant choices, and that when we do this is not something other than the sorrowful wrath of our loving God.” (NT Wright)
It is argued that punishment for sin, even where it involves enormous suffering (as in the case of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem) does not compromise God’s goodness, being merely the exercise of divine justice. NT Wright speaks of this as “sorrowful wrath of our loving God”. All I can say is that it strikes me as obscene to talk of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem as being the action of a loving God.
Evil- the price of human freedom?
The more troublesome cases are those evils which affront every human sensibility but where God does nothing. A standard argument in such cases is that evil is a necessary consequence of human free will: if human beings are to be allowed to make up their own minds about what to do, then it is possible they will choose to do evil. Hence God is faced with a dilemma- either he prevents all evil or he withdraws freedom of will, a defining attribute of human beings. The argument goes that God resolves the dilemma by choosing to let humans remain free but at the cost of evil in the world.
I do not think this leaves God’s unqualified goodness intact. Are Auschwitz and Buchenwald to be justified as the price for Hitler’s freedom to make his own decisions? But there are two other problems with this idea. One is that not all the evils we experience are the consequence of human decisions (tsunamis, cancer), so there is no reason, on grounds of preserving human free will, why God should not intervene in those cases- and yet he does not. The other is that God has shown that he is willing to suspend human freedom of action to achieve his ends- for example, when he hardens the heart of Pharaoh and manipulates the strategic plans of the Babylonians, Persians and Assyrians. If God can withdraw free will in these cases why could he not do so in the case of Hitler (Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot etc).
The teaching power of evil endured
It is also argued that God allows the evils of this world so that we human beings will learn to be better people. This draws on the image of the caning dispensed at school which (supposedly) taught us the difference between right and wrong. In my view physical assault of this sort is never right but the objections to it as an illustration of the teaching purposes of evil are different. The gas chambers of Auschwitz and the gulag of Stalin are not comparable to six strokes of the cane. The people who endured these evils were more likely to be completely broken that to emerge as better people. Secondly, this line of defence assumes that the morality of actions is to be assessed in terms of the goodness or badness of their consequences- which means there are no acts which are intrinsically morally wrong.
One of the acts that we regard as morally wrong is a failure to help those in serious need. Several months ago two little boys climbed into the boot of a car in a small town in New South Wales and pulled the lid of the boot shut. They were unable to unlatch the lid from inside and, with ambient temperatures of 40 degrees C, died of heat stress. Anybody who could have saved them and who did not would be reviled as morally derelict and yet that is what this argument asks us to believe of God.
Jesus and judgment on Israel
I want now to bring the question of evil in the world into the debate about discussions in OST about Jesus and the judgement on Israel that came to fruition in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. In an earlier post, Andrew said
It seems to me an inescapable conclusion that the historical Jesus (rather than the Jesus of, in this case, liberal piety) warned Israel that if they did not repent, they faced devastation. He believed (this is not less than a political assessment) that the nation was travelling a path that would end in war against Rome and destruction.
My response was that this reading of scripture is that the divine judgement pronounced by Jesus is of a piece with Jahweh’s judgement on errant Israel, Babylon etc. In both cases there are massive interventions in earthly affairs which cause untold suffering.
This is radically at odds with my understanding of the gospel as revealing a God who refuses to, and perhaps cannot, exercise political power. Jesus’ command of the elements and power to heal reveal his divine provenance, but he deliberately renounces the use of his power for political purposes or indeed to force anybody to do anything. His contest with the devil in the wilderness is a stand-off; he declines to use the legions of angels that are available to him when the chief priests come to arrest him. He is content that divine judgement should be passed somewhere else than on earth: “Your Father in heaven causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matt 5.21ff)”
I am not sure whether my view, that there is a major discontinuity between the New and Old Testament in the way that God is revealed on earth, will stand up to systematic analysis. But I am sure that if God is conceived of as having the ability to change the course of earthly events, but does so only when his own justice or projects are at stake, then his goodness is fatally compromised.
Jesus and the goodness of God
Paul. It strikes me as oddly selective to latch on to the themes in Jesus’ ministry where love and self-sacrifice are emphasized, but yet to ignore the more ‘negative’ themes there as well. While I firmly reject the assumption that Jesus was warning individuals of their damnation to ‘hell’, I do think something like ‘the wrath of God’ as evidenced by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ce is part and parcel of the Jesus story.
In fact, given your sense of outrage at the evils of the world, I’m surprised you don’t see more justice in expressions of his ‘wrath’ (properly understood). While ‘wrath’ is a theological category (and shouldn’t be understood in an interventionist model of divine providence), I’m not sure how possible it is to ‘filter it out’ as it were, of the biblical narrative. Perhaps NT Wright’s refusal to dismiss the category stems from his sense of continuity with that narrative.
I think it’s fair to understand Jesus’ life and teachings as a critique of more violent models of God, but I’m uncomfortable glossing over what seems like a persistent theme of describing God’s Creation as (to a certain extent) morally ordered (in such a way that ‘going against the grain’ for too long results in bad consequences).
Also, just a thought, I think something like a free will theodicy can be defended as long as one thinks of the autonomy of individuals (and of nature!) as granted by virtue of their existence once and for all (rather than moment by moment).
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Jesus and the goodness of God
Daniel
“It strikes me as oddly selective to latch on to the themes in Jesus’ ministry where love and self-sacrifice are emphasized, but yet to ignore the more ‘negative’ themes there as well”
I take your point- I want to avoid an understanding of the gospels that is selective, and as I said in my post I am not sure whether my view, that there is a major discontinuity between the New and Old Testament in the way that God is revealed on earth, will stand up to systematic analysis.
“In fact, given your sense of outrage at the evils of the world, I’m surprised you don’t see more justice in expressions of his ‘wrath’”
I do not claim a greater moral sensitivity than anyone else. But I do admit to an emotional reaction to explanations of such evils as the activity of a loving God.
“While ‘wrath’ is a theological category (and shouldn’t be understood in an interventionist model of divine providence), I’m not sure how possible it is to ‘filter it out’ as it were, of the biblical narrative.”
I don’t understand what you mean here- especially the way you oppose the terms “theological category” and “interventionist model of divine providence”
“Also, just a thought, I think something like a free will theodicy can be defended as long as one thinks of the autonomy of individuals (and of nature!) as granted by virtue of their existence once and for all (rather than moment by moment).”
I don’t understand this either- could you spell it out a bit.
Paul
Re: Jesus and the goodness of God
Well, I’m sure my own understanding of Scripture is flawed as well, but I think of God’s ‘wrath’ like so:
Say Bob is an alcoholic. He beats his wife and his kids and throws temper tantrums. While at first his wife takes it, she soon realizes this is a bad situation and moves out—despite her love for Bob and her knowledge that moving out will hurt him (say, for example, that Bob isn’t self-sufficient and depends on her for doing the shopping or something). She stays in relationship with Bob to try and change him, but he just gets angrier and angrier and eventually cuts off all contact. Rather than force herself on him (even to help him), Bob’s wife decides to leave him to his own devices. One night, he’s so ticked at his wife for not trying to save him (he’s kind of schizophrenic that way), he drinks himself into oblivion and dies of alcohol poisoning.
Now, imagine Bob is Israel, and his wife is Yahweh. The analogy is imperfect, but one could say that in Yahweh’s morally ordered universe, it isn’t possible to go on doing injustice (e.g. by beating the kids) and have nothing happen. Eventually Yahweh withdraws his hand of protection, and his ‘wrath’ at injustice is manifested through the agency of the alcohol (or through Babylon or what have you).
The themes to take away are these: theologically speaking, God’s wrath is wrath at injustice (not at individuals), and it is (usually) manifested corporately (at nations rather than individuals). Prophetically claiming that an event or disaster is a manifestation of God’s wrath is of course dangerous (it was in biblical times and it is today), since it has the potential to make God out to be a monster (which I take it is your concern). As long as we try to think of it as the biblical authors imagine it however, I don’t think it’s all that problematic.
And you’re right to point out that as disciples of Jesus, our call is always to love those who suffer, even if they suffer justly (e.g. Pharoah under the plagues, Jerusalem in 70ce).
As far as my comment on the free will defense goes, I just meant to say that I don’t think God ‘allows’ bad things to happen in a meticulous sense (contra, perhaps, the opening sequence of Job’s story). Rather, by choosing to create, God grants autonomous existence to genuine ‘others’. These others, by virtue of their (relative) autonomy, can and do choose to do evil or good. God’s providence, it seems to me, cannot transgress these boundaries (though it should be noted that God cannot because he wills not—as a necessary being, all sorts of weird things apply to him—all that to say, it’s not as if he didn’t freely choose to create this kind of a world: he took a genuine risk). Does this make sense? It’s at least how I usually think of it, though I’m not sure how helpful it is.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Jesus and the goodness of God
Daniel
Thanks for spelling out your thoughts in greater detail.
The example you give suggests
1. that it is the natural order of things as ordained by God that somebody (does this include nations?) who behaves unjustly will reap the consequences of his behaviour;
2. for a time God stops this natural process from playing itself out;
3. but that at a certain point God decides that the natural order should assert itself and injustice receives its due recompense.
My first question is: what scriptural basis is there for this scenario. My reading of the scriptures is that when God intervenes to punish he does so by the direct manipulation of people, events or the elements- he does not passively look on waiting for the propitious moment to intervene in the natural course of events.
Further, how often does God intervene to advance the cause of justice? He punishes the Jews because of their disobedience but I find it difficult to call to mind occasions where he punishes a person or a nation for having been unjust.
Leaving aside the scriptures, I do not think there is the slightest reason to suppose that it is in the natural order of things for the unjust to reap the consequences of their behaviour. If there is one thing that the world teaches, it is that injustice goes unpunished. Mao tse-Tung and Stalin both died in their beds having lived to a ripe old age; there have been murderous regimes throughout history which have survived for lengthy periods (Rome, various Chinese dynasties, Soviet Russia, South American empires, present day African regimes etc etc,). For thousands of years women have received unfair treatment from men, as have homosexuals and the Untouchables in India. Everywhere and throughout human history, the rich and powerful and violent prey on the weak, the poor and the timid.
However none of this is germane to my central point. This is that, if you are right and I am wrong and God really does intervene in the world to right injustice, then the question immediately arises as to why he did not do so in the case of Auschwitz, the 2005 Asian tsunami, the two little boys who died trapped in a car trunk in New South Wales?
What are we to make of a God who is all to willing to punish those who disobey him but who idly sits by while innocents in their millions are slaughtered?
Paul
Re: Jesus and the goodness of God
Good questions Paul. I have only two thoughts in response:
1. God’s primary agency in the world, biblically understood, is enacted by his people. In the Christian age, this means that the Body of Christ is called to do the work of Christ, which is the work of God.
2. I believe, for philosophical rather than biblical reasons (though I do think there are definite echoes of this in Scripture), that when God freely and sovereignly chose to create, he took a genuine risk regarding short-term outcomes. Just like a parent takes a risk by bringing a child into the world, so also the Father took a risk by bringing us into the world. I believe God relinquished control of the creation to a certain extent and that a (metaphorical) veil separates ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’. That veil was broken in the person of Christ, and Christians are called to break it as well (by listening to the soft voice of the Spirit). In general then, God works synergistically and does not work unilaterally (which is what would be required to prevent the evils you mention).
Why does God to intervene unilaterally? I don’t know. My best attempt at an answer might be to say that he can’t. I might argue he took the dreadful risk of committing himself to only work synergistically with humans. I’m not convinced that this is the case, but I think one could make a reasonable argument along those lines—thus salvaging God’s goodness from the critique of evil. In short, I’m not convinced interventionism best conveys the relationship between the Father and his creation.
My claims about God’s wrath should be understood from this perspective.
Am I making sense?
-Daniel-