Re: Dembski theodicy

In a message dated 5/12/2006 9:47:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dopderbeck@gmail.com writes:
I like this insight too, but I wonder if it really goes far enough to satisfy
the text. Verse 23 seems to tie the expectation of a new creation with the
expectation of the resurrection body. And all of this seems to be tied
together in Revelation 21. If the redemption of our bodies involvesa real, physical
change, it would seem that the redemption of creation also involves a real,
physical change; and if such a real, physical change is necessary, it would seem
that something is "wrong" in some way because of sin.
I agree. I think that the Bible has a lot more to say about "natural evil"
than what it says in Gen.1-3 and Romans 8. For example, consider the following
passage, which is poetic imagery and is NOT intended to create a systematic
theology or theodicy, but which DOES give us tremendous insight into the
Hebrews' concept of natural evil:

Isa 11:6-9
6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with
the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little
boy will lead them.
7 Also the cow and the bear will graze; their young will lie down together;
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned
child will put his hand on the viper's den.
9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will
be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
(NAS)

Note verse 9 in particular, how it uses the words "hurt" and "destroy" and
"the earth" [the created realm], all in reference to _animal_ behaviors that we
"northern" or "modern" people are worried about. Apparently the ancient
Hebrews didn't fail to notice and think about the exact same things in reference to
God and what an ideal world would be like.

Sure, this is poetic imagery, but the reason it works as imagery is precisely
because people DO recognize natural evil in these things.

On the other hand, I don't think Gen.1-3 was intended to explain the origin
of evil and suffering. Evil simply **appears** in the earth in the form of the
serpant without any explanation whatsoever. Adam and Eve were expected to
suffer the serpant's temptations despite the fact that they were entirely
innocent. In the same way, the animals are expected to suffer in this era despite
the fact that they are still entirely innocent. No explanation is offered for
innocents' suffering in that passage, nor in any passage as far as I can
recall. I think it is just assumed in the Bible that suffering for a good cause is
a good thing, but how evil came in the first place (so that there must be
suffering at all) is left largely unexplained. As far as we know, the animal's
don't comprehend the explanation for it, either.

What Gen.1-3 does explain is why human suffering is so intense. It says that
pain in bearing children was multiplied (not originated) because of sin. I
think this part of the curse directed at Eve "the mother of all the living"
was poetically intended as a reference to all aspects of human sin and depravity
as each generation "brings forth children":

>To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, in
pain you shall **bring forth children***..."

Bringing forth children doesn't end when the umbilical cord is cut. Eve's
pain in literal childbirth was trivial compared to her pain when Cain slew Abel
and became a cursed man. This part of the curse is about the increase in
suffering Eve would have as a parent due to the her childrens' sin working its
inevitable effects in their lives. Likewise, gardening grew tougher because
mankind became separated from God and was unable to draw from God's resources in
living in this world, not because the earth itself had changed. (Also, the
curse on the serpant was directed at the devil using imagery drawn specifically
from serpants in order to create poetic justice -- it was not a literal curse
on snakes. That is, since the devil chose to appear to Adam and Eve in the
form of a snake, then his lot would be the "lowly" existence aptly symbolized by
a snake.)

I think we don't give the ancient Hebrews enough credit. Surely they knew
the powerfully poetic meaning of these symbols God spoke in the curse. In
general, I think modern people don't give any ancient peoples nearly enough credit
in the depth and beauty of their literature. Giving the Hebrews credit to be
able to see the obvious symbolism in this passage, I think we can safely
conclude that the curse is about the effects of sin changing mankind, not about it
affecting the universe in any way. So Gen.1-3 is not a theodicy nor was it
intended to be. We aren't being more sophisticated than the ancient Hebrews to
figure this out. Instead, maybe we are just now coming up to their level.

However, I think the Biblical view of suffering is that it is part of a
cosmic drama, and that both evil and suffering will be put away when the drama is
finished. The suffering C.S.Lewis discusses is the suffering of giving
yourself away in love to another person, and that kind of "suffering" will be eternal
but full of joy, unlike what we are calling natural evil. So I think there
will be an eschatalogical end to this kind of suffering.

Phil Metzger
Orlando, FL
Received on Sat May 13 00:18:59 2006