Though the existence of evil is not the fault of God, the
problem with the reality of evil still remains: If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent then why would He allow evil to exist? When tragedy strikes and evil appears to run amuck through the created universe, the same question heard by Wiesel comes from the back of the human mind: “Where is merciful God, where is He?”[1] If one simply trusts human logic for the answer to this question, he or she will be led to the following conclusions[2]:
God is not omnipotent.
The commonly utilized definition of omnipotence as the quality of being “all-powerful” can lead to many inconsistencies.[3] Omnipotence is often casually defined by stating that God is all-powerful. There is nothing that God cannot do, thus making Him the most potent being that exists. While this author would not disagree with the underlying concept of this commonly used definition, there is a bit of mending that must be done in order understand this concept biblically. The church father, Augustine, discussed this idea in his work, The City of God, when he writes: “But assuredly [God] is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.”[4]
The understanding that God has decided to withhold Himself from acting in a certain way is not to say that He is incapable of doing so. His power is in no way negated when He chooses not to demonstrate it. As Kreeft and Tacelli correctly state:
Omnipotence could not have created a world in which there was genuine human freedom and yet no possibility of sin, for our freedom includes the possibility of sin within its own meaning. ‘All things are possible with God’ indeed; but a meaningless self-contradiction is not any thing at all. One such meaningless self-contradiction is a world in which there is real free choice – that is, the possibility of freely choosing good or evil – and at the same time no possibility of choosing evil. To ask why God didn’t create such a world is like asking why God didn’t create colorless color or round squares.[5]
To put it more succinctly, a father may choose to wrestles with his small children, yet, he does not use his full strength to win the match. On the contrary, the father withholds the full exercise of his power so as not to harm his beloved ones. For the children to then deny the father’s factual strength as a result would be erroneous and ultimately discourteous to the father. “In the same way, God’s choice to withhold any exercise of His infinite power does not deny its reality. One must conclude then that God has chosen to refrain from withholding evil from occurring for a specific purpose.”[6]
God is not omnibenevolent.
If it can be concluded that God can suppress evil from occurring yet does not wish to do so, then the next logical inference is that He is not omnibenevolent or “all-good.” Reason then leads one to believe that God is a sadist who finds delight in the punishment and pain of His creatures. This God is likened to those of ancient Greece, who were nothing more than deified men and women who found pleasure in demanding humanity’s admiration while punishing them relentlessly for failing to do so.
However, Scripture does not paint such a picture of God. While the God of the Bible does demand obedience and punish the guilty (Exodus 34:6-8), He is also defined as “love” in 1 John 4:8. Dr. Ryrie writes that “Love seeks good for the object loved. What is good? In God it is the perfection of holiness and all that that concept implies. Love in God is seeking the highest good and glory of His perfections. This implies no selfishness in God as it would in human beings.”[7] Consequently, God, defined in Scripture as “love” and “good”, cannot be the sadist as suggested above.
All suffering is deserved by those who sufferer.
If, then, God is both able and willing to withhold evil from occurring and to keep humanity from suffering, then the final logical conclusion must be that those who experience pain and suffering deserve it. This view is inherent in the thought processes of humanity. When anguish is seen to occur, the initial thought within the human mind is that, in some way or another, the sufferer brought it upon him or herself. In this line of reasoning, God is not obligated to answer the requests of the sufferer for a cause to his or her suffering; he or she is fully aware what caused it being that he or she brought this pain on him or herself by an act of defiance against God.
Once again, however, Scripture destroys this logical fallacy. The answer is found within the record of Job. Within this biblical narrative, evil and suffering are being inflicted upon a man who God Himself described as “a blameless and upright man.”[8] As the story unfolds, the reader finds that Job’s closest friends hold to the view that all suffering is deserved by the sufferer and that, to them, it is apparent from Job’s plight that he has sinned against God.
The problem, however, is that neither Job, nor his “friends,” knows the true reason behind this suffering. They can only see what is happening and then infer as to the reason why it is happening. They, like many today, seek to use logic to find the answer to the problem of evil, rather than seeking their answers from the character of God as manifested within the Scriptures. As the narrative continues, the reader finds that God never gives Job a reason for his dilemma. God never sits Job down and explains why He allowed it all to occur. As Frame writes, “By his failure to defend himself, God is claiming his sovereign right to be trusted and believed, whatever his actions may provoke in human minds.”[9] The story of Job and God’s unwillingness to explain Himself steers the discussion away from faulty human logic to where it must be to find any possible answer: the Word of God.
[2] The following three points are the classic responses to the reality of evil in the face of the existence of God. Paul E. Little lists them in his book, Know Why You Believe, New ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 132-137.
[3] Some common inconsistencies with such a definition include, yet are not limited to, the following: “Can God make a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it? Can God make a round square?” Such questions are illogical in light of a proper understanding of the omnipotence of God.
[4] John Willis, ed., The Teachings of the Church Fathers, New ed. (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2002), 128.
[6] Rick Clinard, “An Understanding of the Infinitude of God as Seen in Both His Non-communicable and Communicable Attributes,” Research Paper for Systematic Theology I (Winston-Salem: Piedmont Baptist College, 2009), 7.
[7] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Publishers, 1999), 44.
[9] John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: an Introduction (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 1994), 172.
