IS GOD EVIL?

Two other blog posts of mine titled “Theodicy: The Problem of Evil” and “Immoral Teachings in the Bible” are somewhat related to the above question. Also, there is a recent full-length book on this subject by Paul Copan – Is God a Moral Monster?, subtitled “Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” The short treatment below is by no means exhaustive, but deals with only a few pertinent biblical texts in a general manner.

First, it should be openly admitted that there are some passages in the Bible, especially in the OT in which God is pictured as being behind evil actions. These include Isaiah 45:7; Jeremiah 4:6; Amos 3:6; Micah 2:3; Ecclesiasiastes 1:13; and Job 2:10. And there are a number of places in the Old Testament in which human beings complain, either rightly or wrongly, about God's evil actions toward them (see I Kings 17:20; Job 9:17-18; Psalm 39:10; Lamentations 3:1-16, etc.)

Some believers who recognize that fact have reacted to it in rather inappropriate ways. For example, there is the case of the early church heretic named Marcion (ca. AD 85-160). He distinguished between the evil creator God (the “Demiurge”) of the Old Testament and the good God of the New Testament who sent Christ to earth. Therefore, in his canon of Scripture he rejected all of the OT and only accepted those parts of the NT which fit into his theology. But, in line with some of the thoughts given below, even this “evil” action on Marcion's part prompted the church to firm up the official canon of Scripture, and so it had a “good” effect overall.

Another inappropriate stance to take toward suggestions in the Bible that God is behind evil in the world is to simply deny that what we call evil exists in the first place. This was Mary Baker Eddy's approach. She managed to convince a number of people that so-called evil is simply a matter of an error of thinking. Therefore by properly directing and realigning our minds, such things as illness and distress would completely disappear. However, to bring this novel idea in line with Scripture, she needed to completely redefine many of the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible as she saw fit.

Then there is the case of Eastern religions such as Hinduism, about which Wenham comments: “If good and evil are both identified with God, it means finally that good and evil are identified with one another. To have abolished the distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, beauty and ugliness, must surely be the Devil's final triumph.” 

Or, there is the example my daughter and her husband witnessed while visiting a liberal church in our town and hearing the story of Job paraphrased in the morning sermon. As the conclusion to her sermon, the pastor stated, “What lesson can we learn from all this? It is simply this: If you are tempted to blame God for any problems you are having in your lives, don't. God had nothing whatsoever to do with it.” Of course, that inadequate solution to the problem of evil involves just denying the plain fact that God was behind every bit of the problems Job was having.

Also, that pastor's comment could be taken to mean that the book of Job portrays a battle between two equally matched powers: God and Satan. If so, then it expresses a form of dualism, beginning probably with the rise of Zoroastrianism in ancient Persia, in which Satan's carrying out evil against human beings is done totally outside of God's control.

Achilles notes that though “numerous dualistic notes may be heard in the NT, one can never find a dualism in which evil has the same power as good. Equally the thought is rejected that the root of evil could lie in God; 'for God is untouched [lit. cannot be tempted] by evil' (Jas. 1:13, NEB).”

However, from the story of Job we can derive at least two different acceptable solutions to the problem of the association of God and evil, as I will now attempt to demonstrate.

God utilizes evil events to accomplish good.

This fact should really need little proof. All we have to do is consider the death of Christ on the cross, the cruelest example of injustice the world has ever seen. And yet without that sacrifice, all mankind would be condemned to an eternal death.

Or take the case of Joseph, who spent decades of unfair exile and imprisonment after his brothers had sold him into slavery. And yet, at the end of the book of Genesis, he told his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

And revisiting the story of Job, we see that the evil action of Satan resulted ultimately in (a) a demonstration for all time for Satan and for all those who worship God that they can and should do so for reasons other than selfish ones; (b) Job's friends being chastised for attempting to speak on behalf God concerning things they did not really understand; (c) Job seeing God face to face for the first time and being properly humbled; (d) Job's status in society and as a family patriarch being restored as well as his health and wealth; and (e) Job learning that he should pray even for those who persecuted him, as well as for his own family.

God is not the immediate cause of evil.

This is one theological approach to distancing God somewhat from the chain of events to defend Him of the charge of being or causing evil. Thus, the story of Job shows that the originator and immediate cause of the evil inflicted on him was Satan. However, as I mentioned above, that does not entirely remove God from the situation, since it is obvious from the first two chapter of that book that Satan had no power to touch Job without God's express approval.

There is that same distinction in the case of God (as the permissive cause) allowing a lying spirit (the immediate cause) to mislead Ahab (I Kings 22:19-23) in order to accomplish His will. Or there is the similar situation in which it is unclear who incited David to carry out a census of the people, God (II Samuel 24:1) or Satan (I Chronicles 21:1). The best solution, again, is to state that God was the permissive cause while Satan was the immediate cause of this evil.

Kaiser points out that “according to the Hebrew way of speaking, which ignores secondary causation in a way Western thought would never do, whatever God permits may be directly attributed to him, often without noting that secondary and sinful parties were the immediate causes of the disaster.”

“Evil” does not always mean moral evil.

Much of the difficulty we have in picturing God as the author of evil comes from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word for evil. Meier explains, “There is no terminological distinction between moral evil and calamity, for the same Hebrew word (ra' or ra'a) is used for both. Evil is anything that is unpleasant, repulsive, or distorted (Gen. 41.3-4).” Thus, from a human viewpoint, events which seem “evil” to us may really be “good” from God's point of view.

Baker: “In some cases there is no moral censure involved in the adj. [ra']..At times the adj. is used to accentuate the grievousness of something that is intrinsically harmful to one's physical well-being, even though no moral judgment is being made by the use of the adj. itself...Even something that is ultimately beneficial can appear to its recipient to be bad or stern, such as Yahweh's discipline that befalls a sinner (Prov 15:10). Most commonly, the adj. is applied to people and their activities in contexts that indicate moral turpitude. This is uniting into one word of what in English is expressed by two words, physical (bad) and moral (evil). Both abrogate in some way the fullness of life....As a result of humanity's wickednss and wicked natrue, the good but holy and righteous God will send judgment, which, from the perspective of the one who is its object, is dreadful (ra') (Ezek 14:21; cf. Exod 33:4; Deut 6:22).”

Similarly, Howley writes that this Hebrew word “has a broader meaning than sin...It is essentially what is unpleasant, disagreeable, offensive...In the New Testament kakos and poneros mean respectively the quality of evil in its essential character, and its hurtful effects or influence. It is used in both physical and moral senses. While these aspects are different, there is frequently a close relationship between them. Much physical evil is due to moral evil...[but] not all physical ill is a punishment of wrongdoing (Lk. xiii.2,4; Jn. ix.3; cf. Job).”

Vine expresses the same twofold meaning which may be ascribed to either of these two Greek words, depending on the context and gives numerous examples in the NT for each usage. He also points to several NT texts where both kakos and poneros appear together and the pair translated by phrases such as “noisome and grievous.”

As for physical evil, “The prophets regarded God as the ultimate Cause of evil, as expressed in pain, suffering, or disaster. In His sovereignty He tolerates evil in this universe though He overrules and uses it in His administration of the world...Nature's present 'vanity' (profitlessness, Rom. viii. 19-23) is its mark of evil, the earth being under a curse (Gn. iii. 17,18). Christian suffering, whether trouble or persecution, is divinely permitted for purposes of spiritual blessing (Jas. 1. 2-4; 1 Pet. I.7; etc). It is chastening, not penal; nor can it separate from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38,39).”

Concerning moral evil, Howley says, “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...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. xxi. 1-8).”

“The evil spoken of in this text [Isaiah 45:7] and similar passages (such as Jer 18:11; Lam 3:38 and Amos 3:6) refers to natural evil and not moral evil. Natural evil is seen in a volcanic eruption, plague, earthquake and destructive fire. It is God who must allow (and that is the proper term) these calamities to come.” (Kaiser)