God's Problem

A little book report on Bart Ehrman's exploration of theodicy called "God's Problem":

Ehrman, a textual scholar who earned his chops at Moody, then Wheaton, and finally Princeton, says his faith was not derailed by Bible mistakes but by the problem of God and evil (theodicy). He just finally could not square a world of continuous suffering and injustice with a God who is supposed to be just and good.

Late in the book he admits to resonating most with the author of the Hebrew book Ecclesiastes. He takes from this writer the idea that there is nothing after this life so eat, drink, and be merry. Ehrman later appends this idea with a call to seeking social justice in this world. So while you're having the best time you can, be sure and carve out some time for good works - to alleviate some of the pain around you.

From page 200 of the book, here are the rudiments of the Biblical ideas explaining God's purpose for this imperfect world of suffering:

1) it is the result of and punishment for sin and disobedience;
2) it is actually caused by humans;
3) it is redemptive;
4) it is a test of faithfulness;
5) it is a mystery; and/or
6) it is beyond our comprehension.

These explanations are not good enough for Ehrman, thus he abandons the ship of faith.

His students often tell him the reason for suffering is because we must have "free will" in order to not just be robots. Ehrman doesn't buy this reasoning. To him, God simply, in the end, seems to be cruel and barbaric, if this is the method behind his madness.

Ehrman is a good read because he looks at the Bible and theology with perhaps extreme objectivity. But the problem of God and evil does not have to derail one's faith. Sometimes I get the feeling from Ehrman that he is burned out. In much knowledge is much grief.

In the end, the reason for evil is beyond comprehension. In fact, it is part of the reason to have faith, if we have faith at all. Faith sees beyond the present ordeal that is life. God may seem unreasonable, but Job says, "Though God slay me, yet I will trust him." Can good come out of evil? We'd better hope it does, because this world is indeed evil. And like the author of Ecclesiastes, it is vexing and full of vanity. It makes no sense.

Toward the end of the book, Ehrman recalls the famous chapters, in Dostoevsky's The Brother's Karamizov, around a chapter called "The Grand Inquisitor." Essentially, the brother Ivan makes an argument much like Ehrman's: he says that even if this evil, sucking world were to be fixed by God, he couldn't bring himself to side with a God like that.

The picture of this is provided by the father of geometry, Euclid (300 BC). Euclid theorized that two parallel lines, in infinity, can never meet precisely because they are parallel. Ivan points out that there are geometers who believe, in finite space, that they can meet. God could indeed fix things. For Ivan, that isn't enough. God shouldn't have allowed evil in the first place. So Ehrman's book doesn't solve the problem of theodicy, though it does bring some light to the matter. Ehrman's decision to abandon faith based on this problem, though, is not much clarified.

In Job's case, Job is reconciled to this nonsensical evil being part and parcel of the present paradigm. From the perspective of infinity, this 15 billion year old world is just a blip on the screen. God is just, the Bible tells us. No matter how sordid this world can be, it also witnesses good and even majesty. In this cauldron of evil, we still taste joy and beauty and see courage and virtue. And one would even expect, in a coming age, that the tears, rage, and war will be forgotten. God's problem is fixed by the savior - in every way. That is also hope where there is no hope.

Ehrman is staring into the abyss of the post-modern predicament we are headed toward. In that cauldron of difficulties and conundrums, we may well understand God in a new way. But theologians should pay attention to Ehrman, because there they will hear the existential questions of humankind abandoning certainty. And when we abandon certainty, we are not abandoning God, necessarily. We can: it is a choice. But it is also in that very uncertainty that we can find him again, and appreciate him the more.

Swallowing Camels

Matt. 23: 24You blind leaders! You strain out a small fly but swallow a camel.

I love this verse. In many translations it is stated, "You strain AT a gnat..." But it refers to an ancient practice of getting little bugs out of your drink - bugs that aren't kosher. The practice came from this verse in Leviticus 11:

20-23The only winged insects you may eat are locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets. All other winged insects that crawl are too disgusting for you to eat.

Jesus is, at least in part, referring to the religious tendency to be hyper-scrupulous while completely missing the point of faith. But I see more to this wonderful phrase than just that.

I think he's pointing out a human tendency here. We nit-pick and concentrate on the small stuff while completely missing what we really should be after. We think we're being wise when we're really being dumb.

Eating these small bugs was the same as eating camel: both were forbidden by Moses' law. In Leviticus 11: 4 - Nevertheless these shall you not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he chews the cud, but divides not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
So, in very simple terms, we can say, "You concentrate on small things while making a huge error."

I think the "blind guides" Jesus was talking to - the Pharisees who participated later in killing him - were glaring examples of this common fault frequent in all our thinking.

This is common, for instance, in politics, where pundits concentrate on pointing out some failure in an opponent - chipping away at their character or mistakes they made - while the pundit veers away from dealing with the information that actually needs to be dealt with. The Pharisees dealt with Jesus this way. They were looking to trip him up and degrade him in the eyes of his fans. Meanwhile, they swallowed the camel of missing the point that he was the Messiah they were looking for, and they wound up conspiring to have him killed.

Essentially, the point here is to use this verse as a reasoning tool to deal with how we process all information. For instance, science is built on studying minutia in order to reveal truth, but in the process can miss truth. It can dismiss that which it can't study as irrelevant, that is, for instance, the existence of God. Likewise, the Pharisees were focused on religion and missed the very reason they had a religion. They destroyed that which they were hoping for, and for the very reason that they were too concentrated on gnats. They couldn't see the forest for the trees.

They were so busy straining out gnats they failed to see they had swallowed the camel.

Hatred As Murder

Matt. 5: 21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment (krisis, justice).'
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother (adelphos, neighbor), 'Raca (spit, "idiot," heaping contempt on someone),' is answerable to the Sanhedrin (the court). But anyone who says, 'You fool! (immoral person)' will be in danger of the fire of hell (gehenna, full punishment, fires of ultimate justice).

To paraphrase: Of old, it was said murderers deserve justice. But if you are simply angry with someone else, you are no different. If you malign someone as an idiot or as stupid, you belong in court yourself. If you decide someone is in folly or immorality, you fail to see that you are in the same condition.

These verses come from the Sermon on the Mount. This entire "sermon" is really a set of teachings in which Jesus expands on the law of Moses and the ten commandments. He takes the behavioral aspect of the commandment and stretches it to motives - just the act of thinking about doing something wrong. So this teaching is like a sword piercing down to our motivations about why we do things. It exposes the deepest flaws in human character - the hidden, darkest areas of our human nature.

This teaching also really leaves nothing uncondemned. There is no human alive who can qualify after this examination. So we have to have something else to justify us before God. This exposes all human hypocrisy. We're all in this boat together, and Jesus came to visit.

We're all familiar with the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." It's primary religious education for all monotheists and, likely, all pantheists, too.

Apparently, the motive for killing is hate and anger. It starts there in these deepest recesses of the human psyche. At some time in our lives, we've probably all said to someone, "I wish you were dead," or "I hate you." Many of us harbor all kinds of prejudices. We despise people for a whole laundry list of reasons: skin color, cultural differences, education level, how much money they have, religious beliefs or lack thereof, political persuasions, and so on. All of this despising leads ultimately to all kinds of conflicts. This is evil. And apparently God isn't liking it. He doesn't want us killing each other. He doesn't want us to even hate other people. He tells us to "love our enemies." If he tells us that, he too has to love his enemies. And all available data says he does.

How many times and in how many ways do we call others fools and imbeciles? In fact, we find it humorous (think, Three Stooges). In that case, we are laughing at our folly - we all are potential fools. And that's the point Jesus is making.

Jesus is telling us to rise above the fray (as much as possible). "As much as lies in you, be at peace with all men," says Paul.

How does this translate into real-life application? If this is true, the church has strayed far from this teaching. How do we love our enemies, and seek peace with everyone no matter what they believe, and stop calling everyone who disagrees with us an idiot or immoral person. Instead, we have gone so far as to try to wipe them out or control them in a quest to build a "Christian" habitat on this earth. I think Jesus is saying here (and elsewhere) that he is against theocracy.

I wonder what would happen if the church actually grasped what Jesus is saying here. What if we applied it, and actually learned how to make peace instead of constantly cooking up wars among ourselves and with the world around us.

The Disclosure of Christ

Below are 15 of the 24 verses in the NT that use the Greek word "parousia," which, in our modern translations, are usually rendered "coming." That use may have been a theological conclusion rather than an exact rendering, which might more clearly be "revelation" or even "presence." I inserted the word "disclosure" below as it is another synonym for revelation. When read, with this word inserted instead of "coming," with that word's theological implications, I see these verses taking on a different character.

In the first Matt. 24 verse I also inserted the word "Jewish" in parentheses, adjoined to the word "age." A futurist would place the word "church" here; but a preterist reads this as "Jewish." That is, to preterists, Jesus's disclosure to the world replaces God's Jewish emphasis. The disclosure of Jesus renders the old age as past, if not obsolete.

Futurists would see this disclosure of Christ as a future event, which I don't think is totally invalidated by the preterist view. In that case, the full disclosure doesn't occur until the end of this present "church age," instead of the Jewish age. That's why I'm also exploring an added, logical concept suggested here: the parousia is ongoing, or progressive in nature. That is, Jesus was disclosed in the ruination of Jerusalem and in the subsequent history of the church, culminating in the full disclosure at some future date, when all of mankind will actually see him at the resurrection.

Matt. 24:3 - "And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your disclosure (parousia), and of the end of the (Jewish) age?"

2. Matt. 24:27, 37, 39 - Jesus repeatedly said, "So shall the disclosure (parousia) of the Son of Man be."

3. 1 Cor. 15:23-25 - "But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, after that those who are at Christ's at His disclosure (parousia), then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet."

4. 1 Thes. 2:19 - "For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord at His disclosure (parousia)?"

5. 1 Thes. 3:13 - "So that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the disclosure (parousia) of our Lord with all His saints."

6. 1 Thes. 4:15-17 - "For we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the disclosure (parousia) of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord."

7. 1 Thes. 5:23 - "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the disclosure (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ."

8. 2 Thes. 2:1 - "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the disclosure (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him."

9. 2 Thes. 2:8 - "And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His disclosure (parousia)."

10. James 5:7 - "Be patient, therefore, brethren until the disclosure (parousia) of the Lord."

11. James 5:8 - "You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the disclosure (parousia) of the Lord is at hand."

12. 2 Peter 1:16 - "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and disclosure (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

13. 2 Peter 3:4 - "And saying, "where is the promise of His disclosure (parousia)? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

14. 2 Peter 3:12 - "Looking for and hastening the disclosure (parousia) of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning and the elements will melt with intense heat!"

15. 1 John 2:28 - "And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His disclosure (parousia)."

You could also place the word "presence" where I've placed "disclosure." These are meanings of the word parousia. When we do this, the meaning of each verse seems to transform from the theologically suggestive word "coming." "Coming" suggests a singular event: "disclosure" or "revelation" are words that suggest something that is happening. Christ is being revealed in the process of history. It isn't just tied to an event like the general resurrection or the razing of Jerusalem.

Disclosure of Messiah's Identity

The word "parousia" is a Greek word essentially meaning "the revealing of" or the "disclosure of" something. In the New Testament case, it is probably all about disclosing Jesus. Sometimes theologians speak of Jesus' "advent." I know I've used the terminology "second advent" in the past, meaning that at some time future Jesus is still expected to come back. But some challenge this "second coming" idea, saying it is nowhere found in the Bible. It's one of those terms like "rapture" which theologians use to describe something they think is in the text, though not specifically stated that way.

I've been thinking lately that the word parousia could be describing an array of possibilities that all relate to one thing. Those who point to a past parousia often call themselves "preterists." They point out that Jesus' Olivet Discourse was about a parousia that occurred in 70AD, 40 years after he stood on the Mount of Olives and said, essentially, that the temple would be demolished. To preterists, that was the moment in time that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled. What that means is that the coming of Jesus (the parousia) happened long ago. And at first that concept leaves a lot of Christians hanging, wondering, "Well, is he coming back future, then?"

Going back to the initial advent of Jesus, that was a parousia. The Son of God was exposed to the world, whether the Jews or the world knew it or believed it or not. In 70AD, when the Jews were dispersed and Jerusalem was trodden by the Gentile Romans, that might be an extension of parousia: God was no longer selectively involved only with the Jews. Post-Jesus, the world was now God's oyster. He had demonstrated a covenant with the human race. He had extended his contract and was no longer only concentrated on announcing Jesus to the Jews.

The rest of history, the age of the church, was a further parousia. The church has struggled to understand, but God was still in the business of disclosure. That disclosure was gradual and painful, but it was still the "revelation of Jesus Christ." I think it was progressive, meaning we haven't yet arrived at a "full" disclosure. We know in part.

So what of the future? Well, I have to assume that parousia is still active. Christ is still being revealed. And that means that he will be further disclosed to the world. Perhaps these mysteries also include a future full disclosure.

Widespread throughout the Christian world is the expectation of a future resurrection of the dead. At that point, it is assumed that "every eye shall see him." He will be disclosed even to those that didn't believe in him. But that's another subject.

I conclude then by positing that parousia is part of the process of God "saving" (fixing, rescuing, making-over) the world. This whole process is ongoing and progressive. It is accomplished through the progressive parousia of who Jesus is. It is more than just being about successive "comings." It is actively happening as we speak.

Getting Started

I'm a layman, not a cleric. I don't have a bone to pick here. I don't hate the church. I love it. But it sure ain't perfect.

What I do believe in is that Jesus is the Messiah (the savior of the world). Outside of that, the rest is up for grabs. I also want to say that I am not hostile to other religions just because I believe that. I'm not hostile to atheists (I was one once), I'm not hostile to people who sin (I'm one of them, too), and I think Jesus has been unworthily characterized as a hostile dude (closer examination does not paint God or Jesus as hostile). That's my basic platform. I'm not out to prove anything, and I don't have an agenda here.

Am I some kind of heretic? Probably. I am to somebody -- maybe even to people I go to church with. Paul said, "Test everything." That's what we're doing here. We (anybody who cares to join me for any reason) are testing Jesus.

I'm reading a book called "Misquoting Jesus" by a biblical historian who went from Moody to Wheaton to Princeton and is an expert on mistakes in the Bible text. My own journey through Christianity went from being an atheist at 19, to a flaming Pentecostal, to Charismatic, to the dark night of the soul, to the weirdo I am now. :-)

What we are doing here is plunging into the big text itself and no-holds-barred seeking to extract its essential meaning. I hope to start with a biblical word that in Greek is parousia. I hope your journey intersects with mine here at this blog. Love, Al