A-Level Biblical Studies (9484) Paper 4: Christian Understandings of God, Life and the Universe

4.3 Responses to Evil and Suffering: Comprehensive Study Notes

Hello future Biblical Studies expert! This chapter tackles arguably the toughest philosophical challenge in Christianity: the existence of evil and suffering in a world created by an all-powerful, all-loving God. It’s heavy stuff, but understanding how Christians have tried to reconcile these ideas (known as Theodicies) is central to A-Level success.

Don't worry if this seems tricky at first—you are dealing with a monumental historical dilemma. We will break it down into manageable concepts, starting with God's nature.

4.3.1 The Nature of God and the Problem of Evil

Defining God's Attributes (The Three 'Omis')

The problem of evil arises because Christians traditionally believe God possesses three essential qualities. If any one of these were missing, evil wouldn't be a problem for God.

  1. Omnipotence (All-Powerful)

    This means God has unlimited power and can do anything that is logically possible. If God is truly omnipotent, he should be able to stop all evil and suffering.
    Syllabus Focus:

    • Psalm 33: God speaks, and it happens (creation power).
    • Job 42:1-3: Job acknowledges God's power—"no plan of yours can be thwarted."
    • Daniel 4:34-35: God's dominion is eternal; no one can restrain his hand.

  2. Omnibenevolence (All-Loving/All-Good)

    This means God is perfectly good, loving, and desires the best for his creation. If God is perfectly good, he would *want* to stop all suffering.
    Syllabus Focus:

    • Psalm 33: Emphasizes God's steadfast love (hesed).
    • John 3:16-17: God loved the world so much he gave his only Son.
    • 1 John 4:7-12: God is love; Christians should reflect this love.

  3. Omniscience (All-Knowing)

    This means God knows everything—past, present, and future. If God is omniscient, he knows exactly when and where suffering is happening, and knows how to prevent it.
    Syllabus Focus:

    • Psalm 33: God observes all humanity from heaven.
    • Psalm 139:1-18: God knows our thoughts before we think them and knows where we are at all times.
    • Matthew 10:29-30: Not a single sparrow falls without God knowing; even the hairs on our head are counted. (Shows meticulous, loving knowledge.)

The Significance of the Problem of Evil: J. L. Mackie's Inconsistent Triad

The philosophical problem of evil is best summarized by J. L. Mackie's "Inconsistent Triad." This argues that the three qualities of God listed above cannot logically co-exist with the reality of evil.

Mackie claimed that you can only choose two of the following statements to be true:
1. God is Omnipotent (powerful enough to stop evil).
2. God is Omnibenevolent (good enough to want to stop evil).
3. Evil Exists.

If statements 1 and 2 are true, then 3 must be false. Since 3 is clearly true (evil exists), God must logically lack either omnipotence or omnibenevolence, or both. This poses a severe challenge to classical Christian belief.

Quick Review Box (4.3.1)

Key Takeaway: The problem of evil is the conflict between God's supposed perfect nature (Omnis, which should prevent suffering) and the undeniable presence of suffering (Natural and Moral Evil). Theodicies are attempts to solve this logical clash.

4.3.1 Solutions to the Problem of Evil (Theodicies)

A Theodicy is a philosophical attempt to justify God's actions (or inaction) in the face of evil and suffering.

1. The Augustinian Theodicy (The 'Perfect World' Defence)

Developed by Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th Century AD), this is often called the 'Fall' Theodicy.

Core Beliefs:

  • God created the world perfectly, without any evil (Genesis 1:31: "God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.").
  • Evil is not a substance or a created thing. It is merely the privatio boni—the privation of good. Think of evil like rust on a car; it's a corruption of something good, not a thing in itself.
  • Moral Evil (human cruelty) originated from the voluntary misuse of free will by angels (Satan) and then by humanity (Adam and Eve) (The Fall, Genesis 3).
  • Natural Evil (diseases, earthquakes) is a just punishment for the loss of perfect harmony caused by the Fall. All humans are seminally present in Adam (we inherit his sin/guilt).
  • Since evil is caused by creatures, God is not responsible. He is perfectly justified in punishing us.

Augustinian Theodicy: Key Criticism (Example: John Hick)

The primary criticism is the logical contradiction: how can a perfect creation go wrong? If angels and humans had perfect free will, they should have perfectly chosen good. If they chose evil, their creation must have been flawed to begin with, making God ultimately responsible.

John Hick's criticism (specified option): Hick argues that the idea of a historical Fall is incompatible with modern geological and biological evidence (e.g., evolution suggests the world was never perfectly formed in a historical Eden, and suffering/death existed long before humans). If the Fall is mythical, the Augustinian theodicy collapses.

2. The Irenaean/Hick Theodicy (The 'Soul-Making' Defence)

This approach originates with Irenaeus (2nd Century AD) and was modernised and popularized by John Hick (20th Century AD). It suggests God deliberately created an imperfect world.

Core Beliefs:

  • God created humans in His image (potential/blueprint) but not yet in His likeness (moral maturity).
  • The world is a 'soul-making' environment (an analogy: a school or gymnasium). We need struggle, challenge, and suffering to develop virtuous qualities (courage, compassion, loyalty).
  • To ensure genuine moral choices, God must maintain epistemic distance—a distance of knowledge. God cannot be overwhelmingly obvious, or we wouldn't have true freedom to choose good over self-interest.
  • Evil is therefore instrumental—it is a tool God permits (not causes) to help humans achieve spiritual maturity.

Irenaean Theodicy: Key Criticism (Example: D.Z. Phillips)

The main criticism is the ethical problem: does the scale and distribution of suffering justify the means? Can we truly say the Holocaust or a child dying of cancer is a necessary tool for "soul-making"?

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips' criticism (specified option): Phillips argues that proposing God uses horrific suffering for a good end (soul-making) is morally indefensible. A truly omnibenevolent God would not utilize or tolerate such intense, random suffering, regardless of the ultimate spiritual benefit. It makes God seem cruel or calculating.

Did you know?

The word Theodicy comes from Greek: Theos (God) + Dike (Justice). It literally means 'justifying God'.

4.3.2 Job and the Problem of Suffering

The Book of Job is a powerful and specific biblical text that studies the problem of unjustified suffering, providing a distinct perspective on human and divine understanding.

A. The Introduction: Job’s Righteousness and Unjustified Suffering (Job 1:1-2:10)

The opening chapters set the scene:

  • The Character of Job: He is described as blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil (Job 1:1). He is deeply righteous.
  • The Dialogue between Yahweh and Satan (the Accuser): Satan suggests Job is only righteous because God has blessed him (Job 1:9-10). The ensuing suffering is a test: Will Job remain faithful even when stripped of all blessings?
  • The Significance: The reader knows Job’s suffering is *not* a result of personal sin—it is unjustified. This immediately rejects the traditional retribution theology (that suffering = punishment).
  • Job’s Response: Despite losing his children, wealth, and health, Job refuses to curse God (Job 1:21 and 2:10). He maintains his integrity.

B. Job's Physical and Inner Turmoil (Job 3)

After silently enduring the suffering, Job finally breaks down in Chapter 3. He curses the day he was born. This shows the depth of his inner turmoil. He is not just physically suffering; he is wrestling with the meaninglessness of his pain.

C. The Dialogues with the Friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar)

Job’s three friends arrive to comfort him, but they quickly revert to retribution theology (the idea that suffering is proportional to sin).

  • The Friends' Arguments: They insist that Job must have sinned, possibly unknowingly, because a just God punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous. They urge him to confess and repent.
  • Job’s Response to the Arguments: Job strongly denies their claims. He maintains his innocence and insists that the traditional theological model (suffering = sin) does not apply to his case. He demands an audience with God to receive an explanation for his unjustified agony.
  • What the dialogues tell us: They highlight the different ideas on the cause and purpose of suffering. The friends represent conventional wisdom, while Job represents the painful reality that suffering often seems random and unfair.

D. The Limits of Human Understanding (Job 35–40:14)

The dialogue shifts, and Job receives two powerful rebukes:

  1. Elihu's Rebuke (Job 35–37): Elihu (a younger friend not part of the initial three) rebukes both Job and the friends. He suggests that God may use suffering as a way to *purify* or *discipline* a person, rather than simply as punishment.
  2. Yahweh's Rebuke (Job 38:1–40:14): God finally speaks "out of the whirlwind," but he offers no explanation for Job's suffering. Instead, God launches into a majestic description of creation, detailing his power, wisdom, and knowledge of the universe (e.g., creation of the sea, the stars, and powerful beasts like Behemoth and Leviathan).

    The key point here is that Yahweh asks Job where he was when creation happened. This asserts that God's power and plan are so vast and complex that human beings cannot possibly grasp the reasons for suffering. It establishes the limits of human understanding.

E. Job's Acceptance (Job 42) and Biblical Theodicy

Job responds to God's demonstration of power by saying, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:5-6, NRSVA).

  • Job's Acceptance: Job is satisfied, not because he received an answer, but because he received an encounter. He accepts the argument that God is powerful, wise, and beyond human questioning.
  • Interpretation as a Biblical Theodicy: The Book of Job functions as a theodicy by challenging the simple retribution model. It suggests that suffering is not always punishment, and that the ultimate answer lies in trusting God's mysterious sovereignty and power, even when the reasons for pain remain hidden from human sight. God is justified because his actions are beyond human scrutiny.
Common Mistake to Avoid

When discussing Job, remember that Job 42 is key. Job does not admit he sinned; rather, he admits that he was wrong to demand an explanation from God. The conclusion is about humility and trusting divine power, not confessing hidden sin.

Section 4.3 Summary: Key Concepts to Remember

  • The Problem: The Inconsistent Triad (Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Evil Exists).
  • Augustine: Evil is *privatio boni* (a lack of good). It enters the perfect world through the misuse of free will (The Fall). Critiques focus on the logical flaw of a perfect creation failing.
  • Irenaeus/Hick: Evil is instrumental; it is necessary for "soul-making" (moral development) in a deliberately imperfect world. Critiques focus on the ethical question of using horrific suffering as a tool.
  • Job: Challenges retribution theology. Job’s suffering is a test orchestrated between Yahweh and Satan. The ultimate resolution is God asserting his mysterious power over creation, demanding humble trust rather than offering a logical explanation for the suffering endured.