ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ([The Gospel] According to John)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

(John 1:1, ESV)[1]

Ἐν (In) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (be) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (be) πρὸς (with) τὸν (the) θεόν (God), καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (be) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word).

 

This fourth book of the New Testament falls within the genre of the four gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke make up what are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. The word, "synoptic", is divided into two parts, syn, from the Greek meaning with or together with and functions as a prefix; while the second part optic, from the Greek optikos, means to be visible or to be seen. John’s gospel commences with the ministry of Christ to the time of His ascension, as does Mark’s gospel. One thing that differentiates the synoptic gospels from that of John is that the first three are about establishing “the kingdom of God” or “heaven”, 121x in the synoptics and only 5x in the gospel of John. The concept of “life” seems to be more central to John’s gospel occurring 36x in contrast to only 16x in total for the synoptics.

1a. “In the beginning was the word”. The preposition en translated “in” is indicative of something being fixed positionally, either in time, place, or state. Here the reference has to do with placement. The definite article does not actually appear in the originally Greek, as noted above. The Greek noun archē is utilized in reference to things or personages regarding time, place, order, and rank. Although the reference appears to intimate a time, the phrase, and if not the phrase, then the passage, seems to indicate a person. That determination will be made clearer the further we go into the passage.

     The verb eimi is a first-person singular which has been translated as “was”, though it actually means be, or to be as in to exist. Some translators have claimed that this verb is actually third person. In the Greek the verb is in the present tense (Lit. “be”), and in the emphatic it is most frequently translated as “I Am” or “I exist”. “I” is a personal pronoun utilized as a first-person singular. Whether first person or third, the verb itself remains unchanged, it merely determines how the statement itself should be understood. So, although archē can refer to time in this passage, it is actually utilized in reference to a person, “In the beginning”, “I Am”.

     There may have been some discussion over the years regarding whether the definite article ὁ preceding the Greek noun λόγος actually appears in the original Greek or not. As such some translators have included it while some have not. Its inclusion is intended to emphasize that the λόγος is not simply a word uttered or a discourse given, but a person living; and of-course syntax is improved when translating to the English. Nevertheless, the definite article would have been unnecessary in the Greek as the verb eimi (in the previous paragraph) would have addressed whether the noun was understood as a person or not.

     The Greek noun λόγος (logos) stems from the Greek verb legō. meaning to lay forth in words as a discourse systematically, by reason. Different from the Greek eipon meaning simply to speak or say, either spoken or written. If the logos stems from the Greek eipon, then the logos could be either a written or spoken word. As the logos stems from the Greek verb legō, the indication is that the logos is a person, as a word spoken can only be accomplished by a person living. And that spoken word is laid out systematically by reason. “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:” (Is. 1:18a).

1b. “And the Word was with God”. The Greek word kai translated and functions as a copulative conjunction serving to connect words with the intention of creating a cumulative effect. It allows the passage to move from the more general declaration of 1.a to the more specific declaration of 1.b. Again, the definite article only appears in the Greek in relation to the noun logos, (word). In the Greek the definite article can appear as a nominative, as in ὁ, or as an accusative, as in τὸν. In this passage the nominative case ending (ς) is always used in relation to the noun λόγος while the accusative case ending (ν) appears once in relation to the noun θεόν (Theon). Though its second appearance in this passage is as a nominative case ending, θεὸς.

     So why does this matter? The case ending helps us to determine what the subject or the direct object is in relation to the verb. The verb ἦν (be, or to be) appears three times in this passage and has been translated as “was”. In English the tense of the verb is past, but in the Greek the verb is always present tense. Regardless of whether ἦν is past or present tense, it still exists as a verb. Because the case ending of λόγος is nominative, this would indicate that the “word” is the subject while the case ending of θεόν is accusative, indicating that “God” is the direct object. The preposition πρὸς, translated “with” is a term of proximity. Literally understood as the Word being “toward” or “face to face” with God. The Preposition qualifies the verb “was” (lit. "to be") indicating that God the Son (ὁ λόγος) is “face to face “with God (πρὸς θεόν) the Father at the beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ).

1c. “And the Word was God”. In the Greek this part of the verse is in reverse order to its English transliteration, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, (kai Theos eimi ho logos) or “and God to be (to exist) the word.” As in 1b. The Greek term kai translated “and” is considered a logically connective co-ordinating conjunction with a copulative effect. The purpose of such a conjunction is to expand on information provided in the previous clause connecting the declaration of 1b. with 1c. for the purpose of creating a cumulative effect, moving the text forward from statements which are typically more general in nature, to statements that are more specific in nature, providing greater detail. In each declarative phrase λόγος (logos) has the nominative case ending (ς) following the verb ἦν (eimi) indicating that the subject of the verse is the Logos or the Word which, as previously noted, is in reference to a person, as determined by the stem or root for logos, legō, the living word, in contrast to the spoken or written word, such as eipon would indicate. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, as in ὁ λόγος, it is the subject. Word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, as in θεὸς, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?

     Its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.[2]

     So, the Word is a person who was in existence at the beginning (1a), that (this) same Word was (is) in existence and “face to face” with God (1b), and the Word it (him) self exists as God 1(c). What is herein presented, is two-thirds of the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son. Stephen Wellum has incapsulates it in the following way,

      We can now summarize what John means by referring to Christ as the logos and ultimately giving him the title theos: Christ is eternal (“In the beginning was the Word”; v. 1a); Christ is a distinct person from God the Father (“the Word was with God,” v. 1b; cf. “the only Son from the Father,” v. 14); Christ shares the full deity of God (“the Word was God”; v. 1c). And with the eternality, personality, and deity of the Word-Son-Christ in view, we can now understand just who it is that John says became incarnate: theos himself.[3]

---

[1] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008

[2] https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/exegetical-insight-on-john-1-1c-by-daniel-wallace.72459/

[3] Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ, ed. John S. Feinberg, Foundations of Evangelical Theology Series (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 203.

JESUS CHRIST AND HIS BEING Did He Even Exist: Part Three (A)

 

By Noel Coypel - http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Noel-Coypel/The-Resurrection-Of-Christ,-1700.html, Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28274624

 External Evidence:

The Historical Account 

So, for the record, let me just state again my purpose in addressing the narrative of the gospel accounts, particularly the gospel of Mark, in establishing the historicity of Jesus in parts one and two. The most voluminous work we have for the existence of Jesus and all that He said and did has for its locus the four gospels. As such it was necessary for me to lay the groundwork there, in an effort to show the veracity and the validity of those accounts. In establishing their veracity, I demonstrated their accuracy in how claims made correspond with what is actually true or factual. In establishing their validity, I have demonstrated that the manuscript evidence is well-grounded and sound. It is so sound in fact that what evidence I have provided to this point should be more than adequate to establish the truth of the claim, Jesus is. For certain skeptics however it is not, in fact it is likely that no amount of evidence provided will convince them, let’s hope I’m wrong about that. Let’s hope that some are open enough to pursue the evidence, wherever it leads. Let’s get started.  

     Among the mass of religious practices which exist globally, Christianity stands out as arguably the most well attested historically, with the establishment as Jesus of Nazareth as an actual historical figure. The view that Jesus Christ never even existed has absolutely no historical value in support of it whatsoever. Such a belief is a late development. From the 1^st century up to the 18^th century the existence of Jesus of Nazareth had never been brought into question. However, around the conclusion of the 18^th century, through the publication of books and essays of the last two hundred years, His existence has been challenged. This being the case, contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.[1]

1.      Mistaken Identity

     Some have argued that the accounts of Jesus are unoriginal and were actually adopted from pagan mythology and adapted to fit the cultural milieu of the region. Are they correct? One of the fallacies regarding parallels between pagan deities and Jesus Christ is that the pagan religions are often lumped together as though they were one religion—and one that is virtually identical to Christianity in many of its most important features. This is the composite fallacy. By combining features from various mystery religions, a unified picture emerges that shows strong parallels with the gospel. The only problem is, this unified religion is artificial, a fabrication of the modern writer’s imagination.[2] The emperor [Septimius Severus] felt the need for religious harmony within his territories, and thus settled on a policy of promoting syncretism. He proposed a plan to bring all his subjects together under the worship of Sol Invictus (the “Unconquered Sun”) – and to subsume under that worship all the various religions and philosophies then current. All gods were to be accepted, as long as one acknowledged the Sun that reigned above all.[3] Of course the Jews and the Christians refused to submit to such a ruling defying the practice of syncretism. As a result, Severus instituted an ordinance which stipulated that any converts to Judaism or Christianity should be put to death. It was this practice of syncretism which historians now refer to as “the mystery religions”. Given the syncretism of all these religions, soon they were so intermingled that today it is exceedingly difficult for historians to determine which doctrine or practice arose in which context. Since the deities of the mysteries were not exclusivistic, like the God of the Jews and Christians, many people who were initiated into various of these cults borrowed elements from one to the other.[4] Because of this Christians were viewed as seditious, obstinate, and fanatical.

     One account often cited, that is believed to parallel the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus, is one that comes out of ancient Egyptian mythology. The Egyptian Book of the Dead records an account of the god Horus, the following is a summary of that account:

He had a virgin mother.

He was baptized in a river by Anup the baptizer.

He healed the sick

He healed the blind.

He was crucified.

He was resurrected.   

     But are accounts between Jesus and Horus really that similar? Well, if you relayed this information to an Egyptian, the people there would think you had lost your mind. The claim for this “similarity”, so-called, has no basis in history. Firstly, there were multiple books of the dead, so these “parallels” are nothing more than piecemeal. Furthermore, only after the rise of Christianity did mystery religions begin to look suspiciously like the Christian faith. Once Christianity became known, many of the mystery cults consciously adopted Christian ideas so that their deities would be perceived to be on par with Jesus. The shape of the mystery religions prior to the rise of Christianity is vague, ambiguous, and localized. Only by a huge stretch of the imagination, and by playing fast and loose with the historical data, can one see them as having genuine conceptual parallels to the Christian faith of the first century.[5]

     Horus may have had the form of a man, but he had the head of a falcon. As to his virgin birth, his mother Isis took the genitals of his father’s dismembered body, Osiris, to impregnate herself. Very different from the generating power of the Holy Spirit who overshadowed or enveloped Mary. “And the angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.’” (Luke 1:35a, ESV, Emphasis added)[6] The Greek term καί (kai) translated “and” is a copulative conjunction. Such a conjunction exists to indicate that the following clause conveys additional information or details pertinent to the message being conveyed, “the Holy Spirit will come upon you.” The conjunction καί (kai) appears a second time in between the two declarative clauses. Here also it acts as copulative conjunction, “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”, providing additional, pertinent information to the hearer. The first clause is a Greek noun πνεῦμα (pneuma) meaning, current of air, from the root πνέω (pneō) meaning to breath hard and is translated as “Spirit”.  The Greek adjective ἅγιος (hagios) is comparable to ἁγνός (hagnos) meaning properly clean or pure and morally blameless and translated as “Holy”. Therefore, the properly pure and morally blameless Spirit moved as a current of air upon Mary.

As to the baptism of Horus, this is nothing more than a fabrication, a ruse. It’s based on an Egyptian depiction of Horus receiving a water cleansing at the time of his coronation. It is not “a baptism of repentance”. Regarding his healing power, there exists no ancient Egyptian documents that record Horus as going around and healing people he came in contact with. Furthermore, certain Egyptian hieroglyphs depict Horus with his arms spread out, but the depiction is not one of crucifixion. Crucifixion is a Roman practice; Egyptians did not engage in this form of capital punishment. Moreover, while depictions of Horus dying and coming back to life do exist, a resuscitation is far different than a resurrection, especially after three days of being wrapped and sealed in a tomb. That would be on par with the truly miraculous.[7]

Even Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman has noted,

The authors provided no evidence for their claims concerning the standard mythology of the godmen. They cite no sources from the ancient world that can be checked. It is not that they have provided an alternative interpretation of the available evidence. They have not even cited the available evidence. And for good reason. No such evidence exists.[8]

      In 1999 authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy published a book entitled, The Jesus Mystery: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan God? In it they argue that the Jesus of the Bible is a myth, and the story of his life equates to nothing more than a syncretic fabrication riding on the coat tails of certain Greco-Roman deities like Dionysus and Mithras. However, the work is not taken seriously by most scholars of Church, Christian or New Testament history. When N.T. Wright was asked if he would be willing to debate Freke and Gandy on the substance of their book he retorted that it would be like a asking a professional astronomer to debate the author of a book claiming the moon was made of cheese. Bart Ehrman argued that those who take up this gauntlet of attempting to lump in Christianity with the mystery religions are seldom scholarly and their works even less so. He argued that the claims made in their book are simply fabrications, misinterpretations, or bald face assertions that have no historical evidence to support them.

Professor of Philosophy Ronald Nash has stated,

We find that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth for the Christians to borrow.… The claim that pre-Christian mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively as dramatic portrayals of the initiate’s “new birth.” The belief that pre-Christian mysteries used rebirth as a technical term is unsupported by even one single text.[9]

     Moreover, Samuel G. F. Brandon, professor of Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester said with regard to the parallels between the Egyptian Osiris cult and Jesus Christ,

Any theory of borrowing on the part of Christianity from the older faith is not to be entertained, for not only can it not be substantiated on the extant evidence, but it is also intrinsically most improbable.[10]

     So, on the one side we have Bible skeptics arguing that much of the material in the gospel accounts were contrived and never actually occurred. So, controversy stories between Jesus and the pharisees were concocted by the early church to address certain problem areas and then inserted back into the narratives pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth. Then, on the other side, we have skeptics downplaying miraculous accounts of Jesus as merely story telling based on myths circulating prior to and following His arrival on the scene via these suspect mystery religions and being inserted into the gospel accounts and applied to Him in order to prop up this new religion. It seems to me that the skeptics are doing a lot more colluding than they accuse the church or the gospel writers of doing. When you have to go to those kinds of extremes, where you need to go way left or way right of the accounts as we have them, perhaps the accounts as they stand are accurate. The vast amounts of manuscript evidence and their historic proximity to the events they record certainly speak to the accuracy of the accounts as we have them. Maybe Jesus really did exist. Maybe He really was who He said He was or is. Maybe the gospel writers were correct in their assertions. Maybe they really are reliable accounts, and we can trust their testimony.

*In Part Three (B) I will address the “Semitic (Hebraic) Sources” for the existence of Christ.

 

 

 

---

[1] Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 6. Quoting Werner G. Kummel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 447.

[2] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), 223.

[3] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity Vol. I The Early Church to The Dawn of The Reformation (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publications, 2010), 97.

[4] Ibid., 21.

[5] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006) 234

[6] Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotes are from The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).

[7] Rice Brooks, Man Myth Messiah (Nashville TN: W Publishing Group, 2016) 120-22

[8] Ibid., 131. Quoting Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2013). 26.

[9] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), 224.

[10] Ibid., 228.

LEX LUTHOR AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: A THEODICY

 

Part Three: The Existential Problem of Evil    

Everything that I have stated to this point in parts one and two is true, whether you believe it or not is a different matter. But there is another aspect to this whole issue that gets more to the heart of the problem. Though conversations of this nature may commence at the intellectual level, they seldom remain there. The crux of the issue tends to be more of a personal one, the experience of some loss or some deep-seated suffering, mental, emotional or physical. It ultimately falls under the Emotional Problem of Evil (EPE), sometimes referred to as Existential Problem of Evil (ExPoE). But the answer to the problem may be viewed as somewhat paradoxical given the answer to the grief experienced. While accusations for the existence of evil are typically directed at God, He is never the cause of evil, “God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” (James 1:13b, ESV)[1] He reaches out to comfort us in our grief. But people are generally too angry to respond if they believe He is the cause, or the cure, that was not realized. I’ve experienced such views from family members and coworkers who were angry with God for not curing their ailing loved one.

     If we look to the Old Testament and the prophet Isaiah, he foretold in a vision the kind of man the coming Messiah would be, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:3, Emphasis added) Of import here is what Isaiah says regarding the type of a man the Messiah would be. Two Hebrew words that provide us with that type of information are the nouns מַכְאֹב (maḵ’ôḇ) which is in the plural meaning, suffering, or to be in pain, translated here as sorrows. And the Hebrew noun, חֲלִי (ḥălîy) meaning, sick or to be weak translated here as grief. So, the Messiah would be a man enduring multiple kinds of pains and sorrows and stricken with or weakened by the grief of His experiences. By these alone He is well able to understand our suffering. Moreover, the Hebrew verb בָּזָה (ḇâzâ) has the niphal stem in the Hebrew indicating a passive voice and meaning to make despicable or to be worthless. How demoralizing, that He should also be seen as worthless, holding no value. Ever felt like that? Isaiah continued, “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5, Emphasis added) Notice the singular pronouns he, him, his, contrasted with the plural pronouns our, us, we. This indicates what He did for us in going to the cross. “He was pierced”, “He was crushed”, “on Him was the chastisement”, “by His wounds”. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8, Emphasis added) We are the recipients of His grace. What He did was done “For our transgressions”, “for our iniquities”, it “brought us peace”, and by it “we are healed”.

     You want to talk about what’s fair? The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians stated, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”. (2 Corinthians 5:21, Emphasis added) Peter also articulated, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous”. (1 Peter 3:18a, Emphasis added) The just for the unjust, again that doesn’t sound fair, but it was necessary. We may never know the reason or be able to answer the question of why. But Christ has promised, “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you”. (John 16:7) The Greek noun, παράκλητος (paraklētos) can be translated a number of different ways, helper, intercessor, consoler, advocate, comforter. The word means, a call to aid or to plead the cause of another. One of the tasks of the Holy Spirit is to “comfort” meaning, to come with or give strength when we are suffering. So, He comes with strength, to give us strength. C.S. Lewis had been a confirmed bachelor for nearly his entire life, that is, before he met Helen Joy Davidman late in life. Upon her passing very shortly after they were married, he was overcome by grief at her loss, prompting him to write his little book, A Grief Observed. In it, he began to sense the futility of it all,

And no one ever told me about the laziness of grief. Except at my job – where the machine seems to run on as usual – I loathe the slightest effort. Not only writing but even reading a letter is too much. Even shaving. What does it matter now whether my cheek is rough or smooth? They say an unhappy man wants distractions – something to take him out of himself. Only as a dog-tired man wants an extra blanket on a cold night; he’d rather lie there shivering than get up and find one. It’s easy to see why the lonely become untidy, finally, dirty and disgusting. (C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, 5)

     Solomon’s observations caused him to conclude, “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 1:2) In like manner, Lewis queried, “What does it matter now”, losses such as this are painful, no question. It makes us question the futility of it all, what ultimately matters? Is what I’m doing really matter at all? Is there not something more? Something lasting? Something permanent? All Lewis observed early in his suffering was that God appeared, to him, to be silent. As a door slammed shut, bolted and double bolted. At the beginning of grief all our boisterous flailing about both blinds and deafens us to the One who wants to rescue us.

And so, perhaps, with God. I have gradually been coming to feel that the door is no longer shut and bolted. Was it my own frantic need that slammed it in my face...you are like the drowning man who can’t be helped because he clutches and grabs. Perhaps your own reiterated cries deafen you to the voice you hoped to hear.[2]

     Lewis speculated that there may have been something to be learned in it all. About God and about himself. It wasn’t so much a test of faith or love, “He knew it already”. But that which was needful to be learned in her living, had been completed in her passing and so, as Lewis puts it, “the teacher moves you on”. The whole painful experience brought him to one final conclusion, “I need Christ, not something that resembles Him”.[3] It is as I said before, it’s paradoxical. The very one on whom we heap our verbal abuses, is the very one who can help. It is not a call to arms; it is a call for aid. A.W. Tozer observed, “What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us”. The most significant questions a person can contemplate, why am I here? what’s the meaning of life? what happens when I die? These are all important questions that, sooner or later, everyone asks and that need answers. But without God there is no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose to life. Without God man is just an accident of nature with nothing to look forward to. When we die, we just pass out of existence with nothing after. Would it matter that we lived at all? Oh, sure we attempt to create meaning and purpose, but to what end? Without God you would have to create it, but only with God does meaning, value and purpose even exist.

     Francis Schaffer developed a two-story model in which the upper-story represents a life with God and equates to a life with meaning, value, and purpose; while the lower-story functions as its antithesis, it is a life without God and devoid of these same qualities. The man who lives in the lower story without belief in the existence of God cannot do so consistently. So, to give his life meaning he needs to make a leap of faith into the upper story. He needs to manufacture something that will give his life meaning, something to take the place of God. Dr. L.D. Rue calls it, “the noble lie”. Within moral relativism is the pursuit of self-fulfillment to the exclusion of social coherence. But doing so creates anarchy across societies. Conversely, the imposition of social coherence under a relativistic outlook against self-fulfillment creates a regime based on totalitarianism. Thus, the necessity for some “noble lie”; that while not believing in objective, universal truths, the lower story, they create the “noble lie” of the existence of objective truth in order to move to the upper story. They cannot adhere to their own paradigm consistently and happily without manufacturing some noble lie that will move them into the upper story to give their world view some meaning. Blaise Pascal has made reference to “a God-shaped vacuum” or a void, which exists in each of us, and to which Augustine affirmed when he stated,

“Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee”[4]  

     To argue that, in life there is no ultimate meaning, therefore one must create meaning for his life, is entirely inconsistent. A universe without God, is one that exists without meaning, or purpose. Without God life has no value. Atheistic/secular humanism could not argue one way or the other whether something was loving or good, hateful or evil. It’s all relative, there is no objective morality. But a life without God cannot be lived consistently happy in this manner, he must make a leap into the upper story. “For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20) why do we suffer so; we may never know, or it may take a lifetime of learning to discover it. Just because we cannot see an apparent purpose to our suffering doesn’t mean there isn’t one, it simply has not yet been revealed. Lewis has said,

“God whispers in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain; it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”[5]  

     But must it always be so, regrettably often times it is. An evil man contented to be so needs strong correction, if he learns from it, he has gained; a recompense for the evil he has done if he hasn’t learned. Lewis points out that we progress through life surrounding ourselves with all our creaturely comforts and pleasures, whatever tickles our fancy, until we are abruptly met with some head, heart, or abdominal pain which threatens to bring about some serious illness which causing us to recall our own mortality. He observed,

“I try to bring myself into the frame of mind that I should be in at all times. I remind myself that all these toys were never intended to possess my heart, that my true good is in another world and my only real treasure is Christ. And perhaps, by God’s grace, I succeed, and for a day or two become a creature consciously dependent on God and drawing its strength from the right sources.”[6]

     The danger of course is that once the pain is past, we slip back into those things that distracted us from Him in the first place. For this reason, tribulation becomes a necessity; all those toys with which we pleasured ourselves become meaningless in the shadow of our mortality. Of course, all suffering is not the result of evil acts, death and disease are the outgrowth of a fallen world and God is willing to intervene if we turn to Him. But in my experience and in scripture I have observed that people have one of two responses to the evil they experience, either turning to God or turning away from Him. Pain may seem to us a terrible way for God to gain our attention, but the old adage is still true, “there are no atheists in fox holes” and that may be the extent to which He must go to get it. These three articles I have written on this subject will not, in all likelihood, answer all your questions or settle the issue once and for all. But hopefully in some small way it helps you to understand how much God really loves you. Not by His allowance of certain evils to persist, but that there are reasons we simply do not understand and that may take a lifetime to understand, so in the interval we need to trust Him. Either directly or indirectly we chose this. The human condition was self determined, and we bear the consequences. But He knows us, He loves us, and He can help us if we trust Him. It doesn’t mean that there will be no more pain or death or disease, “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:45), but it does mean that He will go with us through the storms in our lives. And in a day yet to come all these will pass out of existence and not we ourselves,

“He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)

 

---

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotes are from The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).

[2]   C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (HarperOne Publishers, New York: NY, 2001), 46.

[3] Ibid., 65

[4] Augustine of Hippo, “The Confessions of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Pilkington, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 45.

[5] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (HarperOne Publishers, New York: NY 1996), 91.

[6] Ibid., 106-7.

LEX LUTHOR AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: A THEODICY

 

Part 2: The Philosophical Problem of Evil

It may prove beneficial to the reader to know exactly what the term “theodicy” actually means.  It is comprised of two Greek words, theos meaning “God” and dice meaning “justice”. A theodicy therefore is an attempt to show that, not only does God exist, but also that He is just, regardless of the existence of evil in the world.

     While it is true that God created all things in existence, it is not true that He created evil. Evil is not a thing or substance but a lack in some good thing, as such God cannot be the author of evil. Augustine argued that evil is privation, the same argument was echoed by Aquinas. Every creation of God is good; evil exists when that good thing is corrupted. That trees exist is a great good. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and expel oxygen; we expel carbon dioxide while taking in oxygen. Disease, decay, or rottenness in a tree is a lack in that good thing. Such decay exists as an evil in that tree, the evil does not exist a se. Some have argued, incorrectly so, that to state evil as a privation is to claim that evil is an absence of good, but that is simply not the case. Evil is a lacking or corruption of some good thing that should be there but is not, as in the instance of lost sight or limbs in those things which should possess them and do not. The fact that a stone cannot see is not evidence of evil because it lacks that ability. By their very nature stones do not possess such an ability, people and animals do, therefore for a person to lack the ability to see is an evil. Explaining evil as a lack in a good thing does not explain where the lack comes from. All it explains is the nature of evil as a real privation in good things. Where the corruption came from is another question.[1] Philosopher Jeremy A. Evans has said,

The concept of evil as a privation of the good has been essential in undermining at least on argument against the existence of God from evil, namely that God caused evil...God created only actual things (or substances). Evil is not an actual thing (or substance). Therefore, God did not create evil.[2]  

     The moral argument for God’s existence attempts to ascertain whether objective moral values and duties actually exist.  If objective moral values and duties do exist, then God exists. If objective moral values do not exist, then God does not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist therefore, God does exist. If we are going to claim that objective morality does not exist, and that morality only exists subjectively then Hitler did nothing wrong, he was simply doing what he believed was right. But if we know that to perform an act of genocide on a group of people in an effort obliterate them is abhorrently wrong, then we know that certain evils are objectively wrong and that therefore objective morality does exist. 

     When we speak of value, we are speaking of the worth of some thing, this idea is also transferable to persons as well as particular acts or behaviors. When dealing with moral values we are weighing certain particulars regarding whether those things, or persons, or acts, or behaviors are good or bad. Moral duty has to do with moral obligations, what one ought or ought not do.

     A few years ago, I was speaking on Hamartiology, or the Doctrine of Sin, when one gentleman made the comment that “in order for us to know what good is, evil must exist”, but is that really true?  Is there really no other way for us to tell what is good unless evil is present? As I thought about it, I concluded that the statement was false. All that would be truly necessary for Adam and Eve to know what good was, would be for them to know the nature and character of God, which they would have known intimately before the fall. True to his own method of inquiry, Socrates first posed the question, “Is the good good because God wills it? Or does God will it because it is good?” One of the world’s foremost apologists, Dr. William Lane Craig, has put the question this way,

Is something good because God will it? Or does God will something because it is good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. But if you say that God wills something it is good, then it what is good or bad is independent of God. IN that case, moral values and duties exist independently of God. There's a third alternative, namely, God will something because He is good.[3] (Emphasis added).

     In other words, if that which is good is only good “because God wills it”, then what is good is subjective based solely on His own discretion, not based on any legal grounds. If this is how good is determined, then God appears to act capriciously. But if you were to say God wills something because the act, in and of itself, is good or bad then moral values and duties are independent of God. But God, by His very nature, is good, it is not possible for Him to conduct Himself in any other way, He is a law unto Himself, for that reason “God wills something because He is good”. Adam and Eve would have known this.      

     The question comes down to this, can we be good without God? If the answer is yes, what reason could one possibly give for being good?  How would you determine what good is in the first place? Would not all goodness become subjective?  “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. (Judges 21:25 ESV)[4] If we are the ones to set the standard for that which is right and wrong then what becomes good for me may not be good for you. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” —Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf).[5]  Again, if that which is good is subjective from one person to another, then Hitler was merely doing what he believed was right and cannot therefore be faulted. For this reason, there must be an objective standard which has been set which states that the act of murder is not just bad, it is categorically wrong. But if there is no objectively set standard of duty, then there is no morally binding obligation weighing on my conscience, and yet my conscience prevails. Moral values and duties do not exist independent of persons, that is, benevolence, mercy, justice, etcetera, do not exist in a vacuum. Each exists as a verb, which can be active or passive. But in order for such to exist bodies must be present for such to bestowed upon another (active), or for one to be the recipient of (passive). Were such properties to exist independent of persons then their effects are non-binding and non-obligatory, yet my “conscience bearing witness” to show mercy to those who are suffering indicates that such properties do not exist independent of persons.     

     There are two aspects to the problem of evil, the Intellectual and the Emotional. The intellectual aspect can be further subdivided into the Logical Problem of Evil (LPE) and the Evidential Problem of Evil (EPE). The former addresses the plausibility of the existence of God and evil simultaneously. The latter addresses how such a God, if there is one, could allow for the existence of such evil in the world. But what would cause someone to question the first argument? Why would it not be possible for God and evil to co-exist?  Do they know something about the nature of God to suggest that the existence of both God and evil is incompatible?  The argument is often made that if God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent why does evil remain?  Thus, leading to the conclusion that if God is powerful enough to remove it, He must be insensitive to it, or if He is all-loving and sensitive to it, then He must not be powerful enough to remove it. Or it may be that He just does not exist at all. But there is one aspect of the nature of God, which is often overlooked, namely, that He is omniscient while we are not. The adjective “omniscient” is derived from two Latin words, Omni meaning all and scient meaning knowledge.  As such, anything that can be known is known completely by God, past, present, and future. He is infinite in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. 

     Some will argue that if God is all-powerful, He could have created any world He wished, He could have created a world without suffering. But are those two claims necessarily true? Is it really true that God could have created any world He wished? As it turns out, such a claim is actually false. While God is omnipotent, He is nevertheless bound by certain constraints of His own nature. As He is perfect in existence, He must therefore create that which is also perfect, He must create “the best possible world”, to do otherwise would be contrary to His nature. As a perfect being possessing free-will, He must likewise create creatures which are themselves perfect, possessing free-will. The creation of free-will creatures such as we are, is not the problem, our misuse of that freedom is. Moral evil occurs when free persons misuse their freedom in such a way that the content of their will and/or actions violates a moral standard.[6] As such it begs the question, what is that standard, and where did it come from? Furthermore, in response to the question of whether or not God could have created a world without suffering, the answer is, He did. Then the reply invariably comes that, we still see suffering in the world today, so no He did not. For those arguing this point you need to go back and read part one of this article. Analytic Philosopher Dr. Alvin Plantinga has declared,

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but he can't cause or determine them to only what is right. For if he does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil and he can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.[7]

      Also, God may have good reasons for allowing suffering, some greater good may be realized as a result. Without fail some will raise the question, “what possible good could come from allowing people to suffer”?  But we actually do this all the time, when we take our children to the dentist, or to the doctor to get a shot, there is a measure of suffering and fear, but good will come of it. This brings us to the Evidential Problem of Evil (EPE) and the atheistic argument that it is improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering. In “the Condition of Reasonable Epistemic Access” or “theistic skepticism” is the notion that if there were some greater good that may be realized from God’s permittance of the existence of evil in the world, our cognitive limitations simply do not allow for us to know or comprehend fully His reasons for doing so.  Philosopher Dr. William Alston has stated,

each theodicy provided as a response to evil reveals 'limits to our cognitive powers, opportunities, and achievements in arguing that we are not in the right position to deny that God nave the kind of reason [some greater food] for various cases of suffering.'[8]

     For the atheist, to make the claim that no greater good could come from the allowance of evil and suffering is ignorant. As persons we are finite, contingent beings, limited by space, time, intellect, and insight. God is an infinite, necessary being, omniscient in existence. “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ​‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’” (Is.46:9b-10). Due to our own limitations as finite creatures we are, quite simply, in no way able to make so great a judgement on whether or not God could have good reasons for the permittance of suffering. Dr. Stephen Wykstra has argued that,

the gap between our intellect and God's is enormous. If there is any charity to be ascribed to a situation, it must be, of necessity, to the God whose intellectual powers have no rival. Thus, 'if we think carefully about the sort of being theism proposes for our belief, it is entirely expectable - given what we know of our cognitive limits - that the goods by virtue of which this Being allows known suffering should very often be beyond our ken.'[9]

     Does the atheist believe the existence of God is impossible or merely improbable or unlikely? And if so, improbable relative to what? What great enlightenment, what vast knowledge acquired, to lead one to such a conclusion? How many times have I come across this? The existence of evil and suffering in the world is often employed by atheists as a rescuing device when the argument starts to go sideways because the evidence for the existence of God is actually quite extensive. As such, they begin to realize that His existence is not impossible and therefore unlikely due to the degree of evil and suffering in the world. Craig has stated,

"I'm convinced that whatever improbability suffering may cast upon God's existence, it's outweighed by the arguments for the existence of God."[10]  

     Furthermore, if we are going to be entirely honest, much of the suffering that people do experience is the result of poor choices or decisions they make themselves. Or, as the result of evil acts of individuals, or groups, perpetrated on another. Should someone move to a region prone to flooding and mudslides and a family home is destroyed, or people have died as a result, God cannot be faulted. If someone should live in a region prone to earthquakes and annual forest fires during the summer months, such as in California, again God cannot be faulted when these things occur. If someone should reside in a region prone to drought and their crops fail, God cannot be held responsible. Should someone reside in the region of “tornado alley” and their home is destroyed by one, you cannot blame God for that. In each of those cases, people choose to live in those regions despite the possible risks. I do not like the cold and snow, but my wife and I chose to have our home built in a region characterized as the “snowbelt”. So, during the winter months we receive more snow in our region than the average, but that was our choice to build there. These are examples of what is referred to as natural evil.

     What about when people contract an illness? Certainly, some of the illnesses that people experience is again the result of choices we have made. Poor diet can lead to heart disease as well as certain cancers. Substance abuse like alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, legal or illegal can result in serious illness and/or death. Use of alcohol and/or tobacco can also lead to various forms of cancer. This type of evil is referred to as physical evil. Though some have encompassed physical evil with natural evil as being one and the same. Regardless, there is another aspect to this whole issue that runs at a deeper level. Making sense of these deep and often emotional experiences, this I will address in part three.     

    

 

---

[1] Geisler, Norman L.. If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think About the Question (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[2] Evans, Jeremy A.. The Problem of Evil: The Challenge to Essential Christian Beliefs (B&H Studies in Christian Apologetics) (p. 1). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[3] Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 2207-2208). David C. Cook. Kindle Edition

[4] Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotes are from The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).

[5] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/excerpts-from-mein-kampf

[6] Evans, Jeremy A.. The Problem of Evil: The Challenge to Essential Christian Beliefs (B&H Studies in Christian Apologetics) (p. 2). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[7] Ibid., 18. Quoting Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 30.

[8] Evans, Jeremy A.. The Problem of Evil: The Challenge to Essential Christian Beliefs (B&h Studies in Christian Apologetics) (pp. 28-29). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Quoting Alston, “Inductive Argument from Evil,” 59.

[9] Ibid., (p. 30). Quoting Stephen Wykstra, “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of Appearance,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1984): 91.

[10] Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 2639-2642). David C. Cook. Kindle Edition.