This is a short teaching session Jon the freelance theologian was asked to do on the subject of evil. Instead of addressing the standard ‘Problem of Evil’ as classically stated, this was a study of some theological ideas about the absolute origin of evil in a world created that Christian theology would claim was created as ‘good’ by a good God.

There were six theological ideas put forward:

• Evil originates in God and is misunderstood.
• Evil occurs when God ‘withdraws’ from a place.
• Evil is entropy/chaos seeking to reassert itself in a world that has been placed in order by God.
• Evil is the ‘no’ inherent in the ‘yes’ of God’s creative act. It is the ‘nothingness’ that exists apart from God.
• ‘Evil’ is down to natural probability.
• ‘Evil’ is a force in the world that springs from our collective psychic experience – interiority.

(more…)

Question 156, from Ed, United Kingdom

I have a question about comparing the Babylonian ancient writings with the Bible. My theology lecturers suggest much of the beginning of Genesis is based upon these Babylonian writings. Does that undermine the creation story as a authority and does it have to suggest that Genesis cannot be interpreted literally?

There are definite similarities between some (not all) of the Babylonian creation stories found by archaeologists and the stories found in the first chapters of Genesis. However, there are also significant differences, and many of the ‘similarities’ claimed are theoretical at best. (more…)

Question 125, from ‘Dan’, United Kingdom

According to Romans chapter 1, verse 20 what specifically has God “Made” that leaves us without excuse?

This verse in Romans is referring to an argument for the existence of God, deduced from the existence of the world around us. Sometimes this is referred to as ‘natural theology’, or in philosophical terms as the ‘cosmological argument’ (from the Greek word ‘kosmos’ meaning ‘world’). What the writer, usually thought to be the apostle Paul, is saying, is that the existence of the world is evidence of God’s existence and because this is so obvious, anyone who does not worship God has no excuse for their impiety.

In the Epistle to the Romans Paul advances several ‘apologetic’ arguments, that is, he states reasons why he thinks people should accept Jesus Christ as their saviour (see chapter 1, verse 16). Paul begins his argument by explaining why every human needs a saviour. Pointing to the universality of human sinfulness, he cites the rejection of God, despite the ‘evidence’ of God’s existence, as proof that humans are sinful.

Although Paul uses the existence of the world as evidence for God, he also denies (more…)

Question 105 – from DW, USA

God says in the Bible “It’s not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis chapter 2, verse18).
I have three questions about this passage
a) “It’s not good” Was God capable of creating a situation that was not good?
b) “Man to be alone” I thought God walked in the garden with him, can you be alone while in the presence of God?
c) “A helper suitable for him” What did Adam need help with? Tending the garden? Or naming the animals? He wasn’t under a time constraint was he? As far as companionship, remember we were created for Jesus’ good pleasure, and purpose, there is no marriage in heaven or eternity, if there is something more that we need than Jesus, there is a problem.

This is actually a refined version of a question DW asked previously, and some points are worth reiterating. It would seem that the creation story found in the first few chapters of Genesis is a merging of two accounts. The first describes, in general terms, the creation process that brought the world into being in seven days. There is then an abrupt shift in emphasis in Genesis chapter 2, verse 4, which introduces “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” This second version deals with the specific creation of named human beings, Adam and Eve, their subsequent Fall and loss of a Golden Age.

Some people go to great lengths to prove the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account. There has been some speculation recently whether the story of Eden is an ancient folk memory concerning the fall of civilisations in ancient Africa and the Near East due to sudden climate change approximately six thousand years ago, which coincides roughly with the Biblical chronology (see ‘Why Deserts will Inherit the Earth’, The Independent, 5 June 2006). Or it may be a myth, in the technical sense of the word, i.e. a true story that has been explained supernaturally because the writers lacked the scientific language necessary to objectively describe it.

Whatever the case, these early chapters of Genesis do present some seeming contradictions. Taking the accounts at face value, it is probably best to approach these three questions individually.

a) If two different stories were merged into one (as seems to be the case from textual evidence) it would explain why God terms everything as “good” in Genesis chapter 1, verse 31, but then later on there can be an aspect of this ‘completely good’ creation, which is ‘not good’. Additionally, from later chapters, it seems that God has allowed creatures an element of independent free will, meaning that even if God’s initial creation was perfectly good, it contained within it the possibility of falling away from that initial state and become less than perfect.

Adam’s loneliness is the only thing described as ‘not good’ before the account of the Fall. One explanation for this is that: “Humanity is created as a social being, and is meant to exist in relation with others.” [Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 1994, p.235]. Being made in the image of the God (Trinity) naturally presupposes this. It could be assumed that Adam would want to relate to others like him, in the same way that God, within the Godhead, exists in interpersonal relationship. Adam need not have wanted this, but once he did, this unmet need would have made the situation ‘not good’.

Alternatively, it may just be the phrasing. There is an old joke that God made Adam first and then got started on an upgrade – Eve. In a sense this may have a grain of truth in it. God’s ongoing interaction with the world is shown by the attempt to improve creation that is already good, as God seeks to bring about the best world possible. While this image of God giving creation a ‘tweak’ is over-anthropomorphic, the creation of both Adam and Eve as individuals has already occurred after God’s ‘sabbath rest’ from creation (chapter 2, verse 2), implying that creation did continue after the six days of Genesis chapter 1.

b) In the account, God put Adam into Eden, but did not necessarily live there with him. In chapter 3, verse 8 (after Adam and Eve disobeyed God by taking the forbidden fruit), God is said to be ‘walking in the garden in the cool of the day’. The use of a specific time of day implies that God was not always walking in the garden with Adam. The story itself implies God is absent when the serpent has its fateful conversation with Eve in chapter 3, verses 1-6.

This is an interesting phrase though, with God depicted almost like a country landowner, inspecting his estate in the early evening when strolling around it is cool and enjoyable experience. The anthropomorphism of God at this point is another reason why many people regard this story as an allegory and not literal truth.

c) If these creation accounts are read as allegory, then they seek to explain, in non-scientific terms, why humanity takes the form of two genders. ‘Helper’ is a very interesting choice of word here, and possibly reflects later religious thought being ‘read back’ into the account of origins. Most primitive religions of the Middle East revolved around fertility practices and reverence of the ‘life-bearing mother’. As Israelite religion sought to establish worship of the ‘male’ Yahweh, it would be natural to promote this creation account where the female is subordinate to the male, a ‘weaker’ gender introduced as a ‘helper’ to the ‘stronger’.

The idea that human beings exist solely for God’s pleasure has entered into popular theology in many churches. This idea has been particularly highlighted by the book The Purpose Driven Life, written by American pastor Rick Warren, where it is explicitly spelled out as the first of five purposes for every human being (op. cit., published by Zondervan 2002, pp 63ff). There is a good Biblical basis to this point of view, but it does not necessarily mean that God is selfish about creation.

To put it another way, being made for God’s pleasure does not limit the actions and activities of human beings, as long as those activities bring pleasure to God. Again the phrase ‘created in the image of God’ crops up. Human beings, as image-bearing creatures are designed to be relational and as such need other creatures that they can relate to, so that they do not feel ‘alone’.

God could have created every human being the same way Genesis records him creating Adam. Asking why God introduced sex into the equation by creating a new gender leads to pure speculation. Perhaps it was to introduce a random ‘chance’ element into things. Maybe it was a necessary part of allowing free will. It is impossible to know, but Adam’s relational need for a helper does not contradict the idea that all human beings exist because of God’s creative actions and for God’s pleasure.

Thanks for your questions DW.

Comment from RS, USA

After reading your reply to MF’s question about God being unpredictable, I feel compelled to point out that God’s Being is Perfect and that the only reason we cannot know or predict His Perfect Doings is because we are all imperfect. beings, given to imperfect understandings and doings. Thus, God uses His Freewill Perfectly and we, being imperfect, are perplexed and mostly ignorant of His Perfect Doings.

Finally, God, our Infinite and Eternal Heavenly Father, has given us free will despite our imperfections and finite lack of life experiences, because it is His Will that we become perfect “even as He is Perfect,” by making our own decisions, both good and bad, and learning from them, on our path to perfection. Indeed, it is clear that if He made us perfect by fiat, we would have no choice, no credit, no dignity for us as perfect robots. We must come to know right from wrong and consistently choose right according to our own free will. This, of course, explains why there is evil and sin in the short run, but in the long run the opportunity for us to grow and progress spiritually and become increasingly more perfect children in our Heavenly Father’s Awesome Divine Family…

A reply from Jon the freelance theologian

There are two problems with this approach. Firstly, in the face of a difficult question for the believer, namely ‘why does God appear unpredictable’, RS seems to advocate a retreat into mystery, in this case ‘God’s perfect ways are over our imperfect heads’. But Christian theology has always contended that, while human beings were created physically finite, in other terms humans have a grasp of the infinite. This is echoed poetically in Ecclesiastes chapter 3, verse 11, where God is described as ‘setting eternity in the hearts of men’.

It is fairly reasonable to assume that as humans are the only creatures created in the image of God (Genesis chapter 1, verses 26-27, and repeated in chapter 9, verse 6), that part of bearing that image would include mental or spiritual alignment. Very few people would argue that it meant physical similarity, especially given that “God is Spirit” (John chapter 4, verse 24). Of course, the doctrine of the Fall of Man means that sin has marred the image of God, but that image can still be restored through belief in Jesus Christ. At some point in the process of salvation, it is believed that Christians will attain perfection, but to say that “we, being imperfect, are perplexed and mostly ignorant” seems to be a pious, yet unpersuasive, cop-out.

The second problem stems from the definition of free will. At a deeper level, free will that is forced on an agent is not free will. There is no choice in the matter. There is, of course, a danger of drifting into a philosophical debate about power and freedom at this point. However, to keep the discussion on course, it is worth pointing out that most of what RS states in his comment is bordering on philosophical speculation about the necessity of free will. Relying on human free will to justify the existence of problematic things like evil, has huge ramifications.

The dilemma is that, in allowing free will, God allows the possibility of sin. But if God is omniscient, then God should know what the outcome of giving free will to human beings would be. Therefore if God knew what the outcome of any action was going to be, it would be very simple for God to prevent that outcome or act in a way to influence it. Deciding not to change the outcome is as much of an action as changing it completely (a ‘sin of omission’). So, this argument relying on human free will is weak. Whatever happens, God has the final decision over whether an action happens or not (unless the believer is willing to accept the idea that there are some actions that God does not know the outcome to).

The Biblical picture of humanity’s choices does not dwell on the concept of free will. Human sin is the result of human rebellion and whether in Eden, or in any other place, the Biblical picture tends to be one of rebellion, not ‘misused free will’. Saying that God ‘had’ to give his creation free will in order for those created beings to mature, puts limits on God’s power. RS says that “it is clear that if He made us perfect by fiat, we would have no choice, no credit, no dignity for us as perfect robots. We must come to know right from wrong and consistently choose right according to our own free will.” But must we? Doesn’t this imply that God is limited in some way? If God is truly omnipotent, as believers tend to proclaim, then surely it would have been possible for God to create beings that knew right from wrong without sinning in the process.

Equally, saying “it is His Will that we become perfect “even as He is Perfect,” by making our own decisions, both good and bad”, is tantamount to saying that humans had to have the opportunity to misuse free will by rebelling against God in order to mature. This seems to imply that the Fall of Man was allowed or tolerated by God. If this is the case then God becomes a morally ambiguous being, who not only allows sin to happen, but also sets the situation up for it to happen, and is therefore the indirect cause of sin, evil and suffering.

Ultimately, of course, calling God ‘faithful’, like any other attribute ascribed to him, is a matter of personal faith on the part of the believer. However, when it appears that God is not faithful, then human beings, imperfect though they are, should be able to ask why that is. If faithfulness is part of God’s nature, then the appearance of unfaithfulness makes it difficult to emulate God as believers seek to we “become perfect even as He is Perfect.”

Thanks for your comment, RS – freelance theology welcomes comments on anything posted on this site, with a view to constructive debate or further discussion.

Two questions on a similar theme, now:

The first is from GT, United Kingdom:

What does it mean for God to be all-knowing?

The second, more specific, but covering the same area is from NP, United Kingdom:

Does human free will override divine purpose? If God knew Adam and Eve were going to fall, why didn’t he prevent sin in the first place?

The Christian description of God owes much to ‘classical theism’ developed by the ancient Greek philosophers, which states that God is eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere (omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent). The ‘unmoved mover’ and similar ideas of a primal God that is the source of everything (including the pantheon of Graeco-Roman gods) can be found in the works of Aristotle and Plato. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, many leading Christian theologians had been extensively educated in the works of these philosophers, and so the classical conception of God was absorbed into Christian theology.

This view of God does however clash with the Christian assertion that “God is Love” (1 John chapter 4, verse 16), giving rise to the philosophical conundrum known as the ‘Problem of Evil’. This runs as follows: ‘God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving and therefore can prevent evil and would want to prevent evil. Yet evil exists.’ The reason evil exists has been the subject of much debate in Christian theology, with various justifications (‘theodicies’) being made.

If God is all-knowing, then he would presumably have known the results of giving Adam and Eve (or any human being) free will. The Biblical ‘Fall of Mankind’ (in Genesis chapter 3) is a direct result of God’s gift of free will. Under the classical model, God therefore allowed it to happen and so, through giving free will and not preventing the Fall, God becomes indirectly responsible for the state of the world. That is not to say that God is to blame for sin, but it does explain the extraordinary sacrifice of the Incarnation and death of Jesus Christ, who ‘bore the sins of the world’. The death of Christ took the experience of death, which is the punishment for sin, into the eternal Godhead, removing it from creation.

However, another way of viewing God’s gift of ‘free will’ is found in ‘kenotic theology’. This comes from a phrase in Philippians where Christ is described as ‘emptying himself’ during the Incarnation (Philippians chapter 2, verse 6-11, sometimes the Greek word ekenosen is translated as ‘humbled’, but its literal meaning is ‘emptied’). It could be hypothesised that in order for free will to be genuine, the outcome of any action cannot be known. Therefore, in a similar fashion to Christ’s humbling ‘emptying of himself’, God may have accepted a self-imposed limitation on his omniscience. This could be why later in the Genesis narrative of the Fall, God searches for Adam and Eve and does not know where they are (Genesis chapter 3, verse 9).

There are many competing arguments over why God felt it necessary to give human beings free will. By far the most persuasive is the idea that God seeks reciprocal love from created beings, but for such love to be genuine, it has to be the product of independent decision-making creatures. However, the insistence on adhering to the classical view of God being all-knowing, does impact on the belief in human free will. In short, knowing the outcome gives God the option of influencing any decision and it could be argued that as a result human free will is a total illusion because all consequences are dependent on God.

Thanks for your questions GT and NP.

Question from AC, Brazil

As a believer I have some difficulty understanding how people say the earth is about 10,000 years old but we see evidence that it’s millions of years old. When did God create the earth and everything that is here, including mankind? Was it millions of years ago or it was just some thousand years ago? And, what to say about Latin American natives? Who were they descended from?

The origins of Earth and humanity provide fertile ground for questions here on freelance theology and this kind of question has been answered before. A good starting point is to realize that the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis is not to be read as a scientific document. However, the existence of scientific evidence that appears to contradict the basic story of Genesis, results in three main ways in which Christians respond.

The first is to firmly separate the arenas of science and faith. Put simply, this is a denial of the validity of human observation and experience if it contradicts truths that are taken ‘on faith’. Because the Biblical record must be true, the scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored. Very few Christians would actively advocate such a view, but it does still linger on in dogmatic circles, whether Roman Catholic, or protestant fundamentalist.

The second option is to try and interpret Genesis as a scientific document and fit the ‘scientific evidence’ to the Genesis account. ‘Creation science’, as it’s often termed, argues for the rapid laying down of rocks during the great flood of Noah’s time, which also provides a handy ‘extinction event’ as seen in the fossil record and possibly explains the anomaly of carbon-14 dating. As for the native Latin Americans, the reference in Genesis chapter 10, verse 25 to the earth being “divided” during Peleg’s lifetime (after the flood) is interpreted to mean the separation of the continents. This means that, like everybody else, the Latin Americans are descended from Noah.

Notwithstanding recent legal attempts to have creationism taught as a legitimate scientific alternative in North American schools, it should be noted that this interpretation of the scientific evidence is hotly disputed and dismissed by many scientists. While wanting to present ‘scientific’ proof for creation, creation scientists do of course operate in an unscientific manner, wanting to fit the evidence to the theory, not the other way around. In many ways, this is very similar to the first option, where something is believed by ‘faith’ and then the believer seeks to prove its truthfulness.

A third alternative is to accept that Genesis is a ‘myth’, in the technical sense of the word. ‘Myth’ does not mean ‘fairy tale’; a myth is an attempt to explain the existence of something or a set of circumstances in non-scientific terms. The reason behind the myth becomes the important thing, not the actual mechanics of the narrative. In this case, it is clear that the Genesis author wants to relate God’s involvement with the world from the beginning, God’s involvement with human beings, and the rejection of God by those self-same humans. It is perfectly reasonable to accept these mythologised truths, regardless of the scientific evidence.

Thanks for your question, AC – the first one on freelance theology from Brazil!

Question from DW, USA
In regards to Genesis chapter 2, verse 18 “And the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone…”
I have two problems with this passage, and feel I have reconciled them, but I would like your opinion. Please explain:
1. The fact that man “supposedly” was alone
2. The fact that there existed something that was “Not good”
I’ve read many commentaries and a lot of them skip over and never answer these questions.

There is much debate about how literally true Genesis is, but presuming that the author of Genesis wanted to present a seamless account of the creation of the world, these two things do cause a problem. In fact, it would seem that the creation story is a conflation of two accounts, one that describes the world being created in seven days, and the other the specific creation of named human beings.

If two different stories were merged into one it would explain why God “sees” everything as “good” in Genesis chapter 1, verse 31, but then later on there can be an aspect of this ‘completely good’ creation, which is ‘not good’. There is an abrupt shift in emphasis in Genesis chapter 2, verse 4, which is introduced as being “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” In this second version of creation the characters of Adam and Eve, the archetypes of humanity, are introduced.

These creation accounts seek to explain not only the origins of humanity, but why humanity takes the form it does. In non-scientific terms, it is impressive that the conundrum of why a creature should exist in two distinct genders should be addressed at all. In Genesis chapter 2, the ‘weaker’ gender is introduced as a ‘helper’ to the ‘stronger’. There is possibly a strong element of later religious thought influencing this account. Most primitive religions of the Middle East revolved around fertility practices and reverence of the female gender as a life-bearer. As Israelite religion sought to establish worship of Yahweh as different from the Baal and Asherah worship, it would be a natural tendency to promote this creation account where the female is subordinate to the male, created merely to ‘help’. In this sense, the idea that ‘man’ was ‘alone’ before ‘woman’ was created implies an equality of intellectual status between women and men. There are no other animals like men, except women, and the author is presumably trying to explain why that should be so and why two genders would exist at all, but without affirming the feminine gender as greater than the male.

There is a school of thought that takes both the first chapters of Genesis entirely at face value and within this literal interpretation two conflicting arguments arise. One regards the current status of women as permanently subservient to men as a result of this secondary creation (thus echoing the apostle Paul’s use of this passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 3-10). Others see this as a tremendous affirmation of women, translating ‘helper’ as ‘partner’, and claiming that this special creation account affirms the status of women as equal to men. It is, however, relatively unlikely that this statement of equality was the purpose of the author when these accounts were melded together.

Thanks for your question DW.

Question from CF, USA

God created the universe of atoms and time 13.7 billion years ago. Each atom was embedded with gravity with a nucleus & electrons spinning a relatively vast distance from it. Some designated to provide light and heat, while others combined with like atoms, still others joined with dissimilar atoms. God, in time, then created life by diverging these atoms in millions of forms including you and I today. We are a bundle of atoms that can think and act independent, oblivious of the spinning earth, and the television, radio, cosmic waves passing through us unchecked. God hasn’t created any new atoms in 13.7 billion years and it should be religiously significant. Are you and I 13.7 billion years old?

Any religious significance from the scenario laid out above would point to a God who knew what he was doing when he first created matter. There would of course be some Christians who would disagree with the scientific summary in this question, but in theological terms there are a couple of points to make.

Firstly, in the book of Genesis, which is not meant to be read as a scientific treatise, it states that God rested when his creative work was done (chapter 1 verse 31 – chapter 2 verse 2). At this point in the story everything was ‘good’. It would therefore be odd for any new matter to be created and inserted into the completed ‘world’ (the Hebrew word for ‘world’ is perhaps better understood as ‘cosmos/universe’, rather than ‘planet’).

Secondly, although creation stopped on ‘day six’, God’s interaction with the world did not. Through various covenants, the Incarnation and the ongoing presence of the Holy Spirit, creation, although now marred by human sin, is still affected by the activities of God. As age-old atoms form into new human beings the process of fall and redemption begins again, God’s compassion being renewed every morning, to paraphrase the Hebrew poet (Lamentations chapter 3 verses 22-23)

From SM, United Kingdom

I was reading Genesis the other day and realised that in the creation God does not given man beasts to eat but only plants (Genesis chapter 1, verses 29-30). Does this mean that God intended us to eat a vegetarian diet and if so when did it all change and did Jesus eat meat during his life?

There are some Christians who would argue that meat was not eaten in Eden and therefore Christians should not eat meat. However, in terms of your question, if we follow the Genesis account, Abel sacrifices some of his flock in chapter 4 (and presumably if he “kept flocks”, then he did so because he ate meat). God formally gives Noah and his descendents the right to eat meat in Genesis chapter 9, verses 1–3.

Jesus would probably have eaten meat as it played an integral part in first century Jewish life, including the religious festivals. If the Last Supper was a Passover meal (hinted at in Luke chapter 22 verse 15 & 16), then Jesus would have eaten roasted lamb with his disciples. It would also seem that Jesus ate bread and fish with his disciples after his resurrection (John chapter 21 verse 13-15).

Thanks for your question SM.