Evil And the Justice Of God is a small book (165 pages) written by NT Wright and put out by IVP in 2006. In my ongoing investigation of Wright’s theology, I picked it up just after Christmas and finished it last week. Like all the Wright’s works that I have so far read, this one is quite lucid and enjoyable to read. Because everyone from RC Sproul to Trevin Wax have already reviewed the book, I won’t write a full review, but focus on what I view as the most important things Wright lays out in the book.
The book discusses exactly what the title says. It is not a book that goes into philosophical explanations as to why evil exists in a world created by a good God, but instead focuses on what God has been doing, and will do, about evil. It may seem strange to write a book about evil and God and not look at the huge dilemma of why there is evil in the first place, but Wright wants to discuss only what scripture says on the subject and doesn’t believe that scripture provides a full philosophical answer as to why there is evil.
Although it is unsatisfying, I must agree with Wright that there is not an answer as to why evil exists like the philosophers demand from scripture. The three main ideas commonly put forward (Free Will, God uses evil to glorify himself, and a needed contrast so one can truly see how good God is) may all be able to be drawn out of portions of scripture, but when you come to scripture with this question, you’re looking for an answer to a question that isn’t really asked in scripture. You can make scripture say something on the subject, but it will never be a full answer.
What scripture does quite clearly offer to the question of evil is a narrative of what God is doing about the problem. Throughout this work Wright uses the Christus Victor atonement theory as a way of reading scripture. In the OT, evil entered the world, as seen through both human action and natural disasters. To deal with this problem, God has again and again used a punishment and remnant “method”. He flooded the earth, but kept Noah; He destroyed Babel but raised Abraham; He sent plagues on the Egyptians but used Moses. This continues throughout the OT and into the NT. From this Wright understands God to be preparing the way for Christ, as all of these examples foreshadow what Christ will eventually do - but he will actually succeed.
Noah was to be the beginning of a new sin free race, but he failed and fell into sin. Israel was to show the world what a people of God were to live like, but they worshipped the golden calf. King David was to be God’s righteous king, but he turned out to be an adulterer and murderer. All this, however, leads to Christ - who actually accomplished the victory over evil like only the Son of God could. He began the destruction of evil which will be finished when the Kingdom of God comes in power (It’s here, but not here yet).
The other important thing that Wright does which flies in the face of the recent questions and comments about evil, is continue to point out that evil is not just something out there in the world, but is something that each and everyone of us are involved with. Although I may not agree 100% with his politics, Wright is right to point out that after 9/11 when all the fingers were pointing at Muslim extremists and crying evil, we forgot that (although our own actions do not result in destruction of the scale of 9/11) much of what we do is just as evil in God’s eyes, not to mention the “evilness” of Western civilization as a whole (War, abortion, drugs, apathy…etc).
Wright wants to make the problem of evil both a very personal thing and a world wide phenomena. Most people, in practice, pick one or the other, but with Wright it has to be both if Christ’s atonement is to be seen in it’s true glorious ramifications. He died to overcome the evils of war, floods, and dictators, but also of lying, gluttony, and sloth.
“we forgot that .. much of what we do is just as evil [as 9/11] in God’s eyes”
I’ve been thinking about that lately. I’ve been taught that God views all sin as equally evil. It doesn’t matter if you tell one little lie or you orchestrate the murder of twenty million people, you’re still equally sinful in God’s eyes. I wonder if that view is really correct and supported by Scripture.
Lest anyone misunderstand me, let me state that all sin cuts us off from God. Even the littlest, most minor sin damns us just as effectively as a major sin. But does that mean that God still views everything equally? The Old Testament is filled with instances of God pouring out his wrath on various nations, to punish them for their sins. If he considers all sin equal, wouldn’t he spread his wrath around equally? I suppose there’s no reason he has to–God isn’t required to act the way we think he should–but it does make me think.
The worldly consequences for various sins vary so widely, it seems only natural that the spiritual consequences would also vary. Of course all sins have the consequence of provoking God’s wrath (hence Hell) but maybe some kinds of sin provoke him more than others. There are plenty of Bible verses that can be interpreted to support that idea. I have not undertaken any systematic study so I will refrain from drawing any conclusions yet. I just wanted to bring up the idea. (If anybody has a book about this subject to recommend, let me know.)
Good thoughts, Jew. I take the position that all sin equally cuts us off from God (from a little covetous thought to committing genocide on a whole people group). However, it is morally repugnant (and unfounded in Scripture) to believe that all evil is equal. If all sin is equal (and deserves equal punishment), then why does God not only do what you mentioned (wipe out certain nations), but also repeatedly mention how it would be better if so and so had never been born, had a millstone tied around his neck, etc? In saying such things, Jesus implied that he viewed certain acts as more deplorable than others.
This is probably a good topic to discuss, as Colin and I have had arguments in the past about quantifying evil (if you recall, I took issue with his equating Hitler with Churchill with Bush). First defining evil would have been a good place to start.
If sin is breaking the OT law, then there are various levels of sin based on the fact that there were various levels of punishment for various broken laws. So at least for people of the OT, there were various levels of sin.
But I don’t know if breaking the OT law is the right way to currently define what sin is.
I’ve always thought of evil as very personal. And I’ve always thought of “world wide” evil as just the result of the personal evils of many people joined together. In other words, I think of myself as as capable of evil as anyone else. Things like environment, fear of repercussions, habits, friends, and particularly God’s Spirit that keep me from committing murder, for instance.
I agree strongly that evil is very personal, but I believe that cosmos-wide evil is greater than the sum of the parts. One person, by himself, is not capable of “world-wide” and/or systemic evil. Something really happens (and I don’t believe it is “merely psychological”) when people band together, for good or ill. And we can no longer shrug off the “principalities and powers” as figments of primitive intellect. Evil is alive. I don’t think that recognizing that forces us into a dualistic situation where God and Satan are equal and opposite. I’d like to think more about the idea of the satan as a sub-natural or sub-human being. Wright makes reference to this concept as well, and while I don’t know how much of it he borrows from other writers, it was new to me and a compelling idea as well.
in HIS love,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY
Jew, I think you may be on to something. I also have not done a survey of scripture but God has actually been fairly indiscriminate for punishment of evil. We know he’s brought down severe punishments for idolatry, profane worship, lying, blasphemy, adultery, murder, etc…
But I think they key (and hermenutically so as well) is in the first great global punishment, the flood. God punished people for the most “light” (in terms of physical consequence) sin possible:
Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Man was wiped out for simply thinking evil. It seems that no matter what the sin, God judges it based on the evil intent of the sin and not the physical consequence. This is how “all sin is equal” - because it is equal in principle.
Jesus reinforced this when discussing adultery as “lust” and murder as “hatred” - it is the intent of sin that makes it evil.
Colin said: “Man was wiped out for simply thinking evil.”
I see what you’re getting at, but that’s not a reasonable interpretation of Genesis 6:5. Men before the flood were not just thinking evil, they were doing it. Maybe God would have brought a flood anyway, even if man had simply thought evil but not acted upon those thoughts. But the Genesis account indicates that men were performing evil acts. Genesis 6:12 states that “all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.” And verse 11 says the earth “was full of violence.” Those are more than just thoughts. That’s not to say that evil thoughts aren’t sin–Jesus is unambiguous about that.
I am not attempting to say that men weren’t acting on evil, but it was the thought that counted. When it came down to punishment time, it was the principle of evil that was incorrect.
I don’t see how you can pull that conclusion from Genesis 6.
I don’t either. What I take Genesis 6 to mean is that not only were men doing all sorts of evil, there was also no end in sight because they were only inclined toward doing more evil. To contrast to today, while we have people committing evil like the Holocaust and Darfur, we also have people who are selflessly giving toward others (and not just Christians, though probably because of Christ). We don’t have a completely selfish, evil world (though we are going that direction, as Scriptures foretold).
So God saw that everyone was doing evil and was only thinking on how to do more evil, so there was no “hope.”
It seems quite clear. All we know from genesis 6 is that:
- man had evil thoughts
- the intents of his heart were evil
- the earth was filled with “violence”
I find it odd that, whereas almost every other part of scripture quantifies sin (murder, adultery, lies, etc…), this portion is quite abstract. In fact, it may be the case that “violence” is the quantification of “thoughts” and “intents” - in other words, while physical violence was almost certainly occurring, the essence of the sin of “violence” was in the thoughts and intents.
The above, is all we have to read on the specific topic, and based on that, it is clear that intents and thoughts were the major indictment God had against men. In fact, the passage tells us that the thoughts and intents were all God needed to justify his decision, as it was only in his later (post-decision) explanation to Noah that God mentioned the idea (which may or may not mean actual actions) of violence. I would surmise (and only surmise, mind you) that God chose to use this justification because of man’s inherent difficulty in understanding that God views intent as sin.
“I am not attempting to say that men weren’t acting on evil, but it was the thought that counted. When it came down to punishment time, it was the principle of evil that was incorrect.”
I don’t think this is an either/or proposition. Thinking evil and committing sin are inseparable. Evil people think evil; good people think good. Thoughts always precede actions, so they are equal parts of the process.
6Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats:
7For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.
That was from Proverbs 23.
Actually, neither do I. However, whether an action results because of an evil thought or intention, it is the thought that conceives the sin. That is my point. We cannot say such and such a sin is more or less evil because of the resulting actions or consequences seem more or less evil - sin is equal because sinful intent is a black and white issue. Sin is not measured by physical consequences, but by evil itself.
Evil (acts) is most certainly measured by its consequences. Again, why did Jesus repeatedly speak of worse affliction to certain people than others? Furthermore, our legal system makes a distinction between evil (killing someone doesn’t get the same sentence as stealing gum). Similarly, and more important to this discussion, God set up more severe punishments for certain sins than others in the Old Testament laws. It’s morally nonsensical and repugnant to call all evil equal, EXCEPT in the sense that all evil (or sin) causes an equal separation from God. Beyond that, the idea that all bad acts and evil are equal is utterly foolish.
You are partially correct. We do measure sin and evil by consequences, and our societies are built on this, but God (as revealed in scripture) does not seem to at all. Again, look no further than the sermon on the mount for this. We also have instances of God declaring that he allowed certain legal constructs (or Men made them) because of human frailty (Matthew 19).
Moreover, God allowing (or even commanding) different physical consequences for sin in a human social context does not have any bearing on how those sins are actually measured by him, spiritually and morally. We have no indication in scripture that God ties his supernatural physical punishment in exact proportion to how he values sin - which is what your case rests on.
“It’s morally nonsensical and repugnant to call all evil equal, EXCEPT in the sense that all evil (or sin) causes an equal separation from God. Beyond that, the idea that all bad acts and evil are equal is utterly foolish.”
I basically agree, although I wouldn’t have said “morally nonsensical and repugnant”. I think this passage in Ezekiel 16 may shed some light on the matter, and I think it also suggests that punishment from God is meted out according to the severity of the act in His eyes.
46 Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. 47 You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
49 ” ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 52 Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.