Theodicy And Bernhard Anderson

In this essay, I will examine how Bernhard Anderson appropriates the topic of theodicy in his work Contours of Old Testament Theology. Specifically, Anderson approaches the issue of how chaos as an entity is not necessarily evil but is left open in God’s ongoing creative process and he equates the idea of theodicy with the justice of God as expressed in narratives of creation, Sodom and Gomorrah and wisdom literature such as the book of Job. Anderson’s construction is founded in his emphasis on the covenants present in the Old Testament and their importance to understanding the presentation of theology in these scriptures. This presentation of theodicy has parallels and points of disagreement with the more classical notions of theodicy as put forth by figures such as Augustine, but Anderson adds his own component to the theological understanding of theodicy present in the Old Testament. Finally, a conclusion will seek to point out some unresolved questions and possible implications that Anderson leaves open in his presentation.

“JUSTICE OF GOD” AND THEODICY

Anderson approaches the topic of theodicy in the context of creation. Anderson’s work is focused on the covenants present in the Old Testament such as the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic and how these covenants play into later relationships between the people of Israel (eventually Judah after the return from the exile) and YHWH such as the development of the Torah, Wisdom literature, and the proto-apocalyptic found in books such as Daniel. Anderson’s formula for laying out the developments of these covenants

is not meant to argue an implied supersessionism in the text, but rather to present the covenants as agreements and understandings that ebb and flow with the passage of time and as the people of Israel develop their understanding of self as well as understanding of YHWH in history. Due to this covenantal presentation, Anderson does not explicitly focus on the topic of theodicy. When he does use the term, he frequently places it in parentheses alongside the term “justice of God.” Otherwise, the most explicit mention of theodicy deals with the book of Job. This presentation of the term itself gives a great deal of insight into how Anderson understands the nature of evil in the covenantal structure he’s constructed. First, it is clear that to Anderson, theodicy is a result of the process of creation and covenant. This ongoing process of creation is one in which YHWH invites humanity to become a participant. According to Anderson’s “justice of God” structure, this participation allows for the introduction of human-caused evilness to affect the nature of the ever-present chaos. Rather than the chaos itself being inherently evil, it is the situation of evil present in the condition of free will that infects the creation. In this way, Anderson is invoking a classic Augustinian framework to pin the existence of evil on humanity’s sinfulness/evilness/original sin rather than on some deficiency present in the nature (or justice) of YHWH.

TRIUMPH OF GOD

In Anderson’s construction of the ongoing process of creation, one of the main points of his argument is the ultimate triumph of God as the Creator, regardless of the presence of

evil. To make his point clearer, Anderson makes a connection then distinction between the Priestly writers’ Genesis 1 narrative with the creation story present in Psalms 104: “In this psalm creation is not just a mythical event of the past when God brought order out of chaos; rather, it is a continuing creation in which God maintains the regularities on which all life, animal and human, depends.” (269) Anderson’s connection of the ever-present chaos with the ongoing process of creation with the joining of Psalm 104 and Genesis 1 furthers his point that God is both maintaining God’s all-powerful nature over the cosmos while also potentially inviting humans to participate. However, Anderson makes a clear distinction between Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 because the nature of resistance that is present in Psalm 104. Anderson points out that in Genesis 1, there is no resistance to the creative actions (or sayings) of God. Instead, when God issues a command, all of creation shapes itself accordingly without any further effort needed on the part of God. And when those series of creative utterances are finished, God surveys creation and says that it is very good. In other words, even chaos is completely in God’s control. So, where does Anderson see evil coming from in this construction? The immediate Augustinian answer would be the natural world and its state of downfall after the Fall has evil as a part of its character. Because of the Eden event, sin has entered the world and all of creation suffers. However, Anderson resists this construction. As a result, rather than placing the origin of evil on nature or God (which he can’t do if God is ultimately and immediately victorious over chaos), he turns to the flaws of humanity made explicit in the possibilities of free will. Anderson writes: “Chaos persists in God’s creation and God continues to create. The

biblical story, however, does not mention this violent face of nature. Even the flood itself, which may be reminiscent of a natural calamity caused by the rampaging waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, is regarded as a sign of the severity of God’s judgment, not the caprice of nature. The biblical story makes an uncomfortable point: the violence that corrupted “all flesh” is traced to God’s noblest creatures, who were made in the image of God. In creating human beings with an independent will and with creative freedom, God risked the potential chaos that results from human violence.” (93) As a result, Anderson preserves the perfection as well as the immediate yet ultimate victory of God over chaos and evil by placing the origin and ongoing perseverance of evil on the fault of human beings acting with independent will and creative freedom. However, Anderson has to accommodate the fact that the Old Testament witness of YHWH does include points of departure from this Priestly origin of both the cosmos and evil. He does this with the “justice of God” language as well as turning to the writers of the wisdom material present in the Old Testament to argue, yet again, that God’s will or supremacy cannot be called into question by a notion of theodicy.

JUSTICE AND WISDOM

Anderson’s treatment of wisdom literature necessarily follows his treatment of the covenants he highlights as the key components to understanding Old Testament theology. Therefore, Anderson approaches the wisdom material near the end of his book with the establishment of God’s supremacy and otherness from humanity firmly in place. “Israel’s reflective sages, however, set forth another approach to theodicy [as compared to the traditional ontological philosophy he lays out previously]. In their view God is not the highest Being but the Creator – the God who is transcendent to, outside, and beyond the whole order of being. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are God’s ways our ways; therefore the problem of theodicy reaches beyond the capacity of human

reason.” (277) While this solves Anderson’s needs for keeping God sovereign and victorious, it does little to solve the questions of human suffering he points to in texts such as Job. In order to provide meaning on the question of human suffering, Anderson once again turns to God’s otherness as well as his notion of the “justice of God:” “The issue of theodicy, or the justice of God, had a peculiar poignancy and intensity for Israel’s interpreters. For one thing, Israelite monotheism… permitted no explanation that could shift the problem to an offense against some deity other than Yahweh or to an unknown god. Theodicy was the supreme price that had to be paid for a zealous belief in one God who, somehow, is in charge of all events, whether for good or ill. Moreover, Israelite monotheism did not allow for the view, expressed in some ancient myths, that evil is intrinsic to the creation and has to be overcome again and again if the divine order is to be maintained. According to the creation story of Genesis 1, the creation is essentially good. It is creaturely freedom, manifest especially in human beings, that poses a threat to God’s creation. Given the essential goodness of God’s creation, why then do bad things happen to righteous people, like Job?” (279-280) On this point, Anderson turns to Job to discuss how and why the situation of human created short fallings can and do impact all of creation. After discussing the structure of Job, Anderson asserts that it is through wisdom and God fearing that we may draw closer to the deity and remedy our fallen natures. Then, Anderson concludes his brief treatment on the question of theodicy and human suffering by insisting on the awareness that God does not act or think like humans. Anderson finds almost sacramental reaffirmations of God’s glory in the closing chapters of Job and in the wisdom corpus itself. Therefore, we are to turn to those scriptures and attempt to glean insights in times of sufferings.

CONCLUSIONS

So how are we to weigh Anderson’s treatment of theodicy? First, it is clear from Anderson’s book that theodicy is to be viewed as a part of the concept of the justice of God. This is an essential point for Anderson as he works throughout the often-disjointed contents of his book to establish a notion of God’s supremacy and ultimate victory over evil. However, the construction has a couple of problems that flow from his setup and ultimately leave his theodicy component open ended and unresolved from a theological perspective. First, going off of the concept of theodicy being synonymous with the justice of God raises the question of God’s sovereignty. Anderson repeatedly draws distinct separations between God and humanity. Ultimately, his preference for the Priestly writers’ Genesis 1’s theology of creation and insistence that evil becomes a component of creation and chaos because of the open-ended nature of free will demands clarification. If God is indeed sovereign, how would Anderson answer the charge of a sloppy creation performance given the ability of evil to enter into the equation in the first place? Accordingly, Anderson seems to suggest that God’s ultimate sovereignty is ultimately limited by human freedom made available by this notion of free will. As a result, if human freedom and humanity’s freedom to choose is directly responsible for the introduction (and continuance) of evil in the cosmos, what does this say about God’s ability to provide redemption through either a relationship based on Torah observance? For Christians reading these texts, what does this human-driven conception of drawing closer to God say about the nature of Christ? Is there theological space for the ability of humans to draw closer to God and for God to act in a redeeming

nature towards humanity? Where does Anderson see the line between these two scenarios?