9111

It is also in this general sense of theocracy that Islam West Germany, 1959). For the concept of theocracy in ought to be considered theocratic. Islam grew up as a reli- Philo, , traditional Rabbinic thought, and mod- gious community that was its own state, and thus from the ern Israel, see Gershon Weiler, Jewish Theocracy (Leiden, beginning there was no distinction of church and state; rath- 1988). For Tibetan theocracy, see Franz Michael and Eugene er, there was a unitary society under ’s revealed rule and Knez’s Rule by Incarnation: Tibetan Buddhism and Its Role in law. Islam was much less a church than a theocratic state, but Society and State (Boulder, Colo., 1982). Dieter Georgi, The- ocracy in Paul’s Praxis and (Minneapolis, 1991), as a theocracy, it was laical and egalitarian, with traditions uses theocracy as a conceptual tool for interpreting the apos- neither of sacred kings nor of a powerful priesthood. The E tle Paul. For royal theocracy in Byzantium, see Deno John basis of this divine rule is to be found in shar¯ı ah, or law, Geanakoplos’s Byzantine East and Latin West (Oxford, which provides for a pattern of life uniting all the aspects of 1966), especially chapter 2. Among many treatments of me- human existence—political, social, religious, domestic—into dieval papal thought, the following deal extensively with the a grand whole under divine rule. Such rule has been variously theme of theocracy: La théocratie: L’église et le pouvoir au exercised in Islamic history, but the EulamaD as well as the moyen âge by Marcel Pacaut (Paris, 1957); L’idée de la royauté caliphs and, in Shiism, the imams have been important in du Christ au moyen âge by Jean Le Clercq (Paris, 1959), espe- its application. Many modern Islamic revival movements, re- cially chapters 1, 7, and 8; and Church State and Christian acting against Western aggression and internal decline, have Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest by Gerd Tellen- bach (1959; reprint, New York, 1979). tended toward the repristination of the theocratic elements in Islam; this was true of the Wa¯hha¯b¯ıyah in the eighteenth A number of authors investigate Reformation and Puritan theo- and nineteenth centuries and has been true of many contem- cracy: Robert C. Walton in Zwingli’s Theocracy (Toronto, porary movements. 1967); E. William Monter in Calvin’s Geneva (New York, 1967), especially chapter 6; Harro Höpfl in The Christian ESCHATOLOGICAL THEOCRACY. A fourth kind of theocracy Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge, 1982); George L. Hunt in is eschatological, centering on visions of an ideal future in Calvinism and the Political Order (Philadelphia, 1965); Rene which God will rule. Restoration and messianic Paquin in “Calvin and Theocracy in Geneva,” ARC, The ideas in ancient Israel were of this type. In Christianity, such Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill 28 (2000): eschatological theocracy appeared in the beliefs of the medi- 91–113; Aaron B. Seidman in “Church and State in the eval followers of Joachim of Fiore, who anticipated the emer- Early Years of the Massachusetts Bay Colony,” New England gence of a third age in which all would be perfect, and in the Quarterly 18 (1945): 211–233, which seeks to set the record beliefs of the sectarians of seventeenth-century England, such straight on theocracy in the colony; Avihu Zakai, in “Theoc- as the Seekers, Quakers, or Fifth Monarchists, who dreamed racy in New England: The Nature and Meaning of the Holy of a coming millennial age when Christ would rule. Such Experiment in the Wilderness,” Journal of Religious History 14 (1986): 131–151; and Jerald C. Brauer in “The Rule of modern offshoots of Christianity as the Jehovah’s Witnesses the Saints in American Politics,” Church History 27 (Septem- and the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon present ber 1958): 240–255, which also discusses theocratic impulses recent examples of groups anticipating an earthly reign of in later American history. For a study of the Quakers and Christ. Islamic eschatology centering on the figure of the theocracy, see Thomas G. Sanders’s Protestant Concepts of Mahdi has occasionally begotten similar hopes. Church and State (New York, 1964), pp. 125–178. The theo- cratic aspects of Islam are variously alluded to in Ruben SEE ALSO Charlemagne; Constantine; Dalai Lama; Imamate; Levy’s The Social Structure of Islam, 2d ed. (Cambridge, Israelite Law, article on State and Judiciary Law; Kingdom 1957), and E. I. J. Rosenthal’s Political Thought in Medieval of God; Kingship; Shiism. Islam (1958; reprint, Cambridge, 1968); Majid Fakhry deals with some modern revivals of theocratic thinking in “The Theocratic Idea of the Islamic State in Recent Controver- BIBLIOGRAPHY sies,” International Affairs 30 (October 1954): 450–462. There is no single, synoptic account of the whole range of theo- Modern Iran is examined in Mehran Kamrava, The Political cratic phenomena. Among general studies of , Gustav History of Modern Iran: From Tribalism to Theocracy (West- Mensching’s Soziologie der grossen Religionen (Bonn, 1966) port, 1992). Legal and ethical issues are explored in Lucas A. and Soziologie der Religion, 2d ed. (Bonn, 1968), pp. 79f., Swaine, “How Ought Liberal Democracies to Treat Theo- 112, and 155–158, take interest in the notion of theocracy. cratic Communities,” Ethics 111 (January 2001): 302–343. Among the many studies of sacred kingship in the ancient world, Henri Frankfort’s now classic text Kingship and the DEWEY D. WALLACE, JR. (1987 AND 2005) : A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion (1948; reprint, Chicago, 1978) is a good place to begin. Thomas L. Brauch, “The Emperor Julian’s Theocratic Vocation,” Society of Bib- lical Literature Seminar Papers 25 (1986): 291–300, exam- Why do the righteous suffer? Why do the ines theocracy in the late Roman pagan revival. For a general THEODICY. account of theocracy and ancient Israel, see John W. wicked prosper? Why do innocent children experience illness Wevers’s “Theocracy” in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the and death? These are ancient questions, but they have been Bible, vol. 4 (Nashville, 1962), pp. 617–619. D. Otto Plöger given new poignancy in our day by the events of the Europe- deals with Daniel, Joel, and other examples of late Israelite an Holocaust. The fact that many who died in the Holocaust eschatology in Theokratie und Eschatologie (Neukirchen, were devout Jews or Christians also poses a special problem

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION 9112 THEODICY for the to which these victims belonged. Traditionally, problem: the in God’s goodness, the belief in his Jews and Christians have affirmed God’s goodness and his power, or the belief in the real occurrence of suffering. Reli- absolute sovereignty over history. But how can this be gious positions that fundamentally dissolve the problem may reconciled with suffering on the scale for which Auschwitz be classified according to which of the three basic beliefs they is the symbol? do not accept. THEORETICAL POSITIONS. The effort to answer questions of Denials of God’s justice. Some religious positions avoid this sort is commonly referred to as theodicy. The term was theodicy by denying that God (or the gods) is morally good. apparently coined by the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz Very few religious traditions openly hold God to be evil, al- (1646–1716) and is a compound of the Greek words for though Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, in her book The Origins God (theos) and justice (dik¯e). Theodicy may thus be thought of Evil in Hindu Mythology (Berkeley, 1976), has argued that of as the effort to defend God’s justice and power in the face at least one important motif in Hindu mythology traces suf- of suffering. result from this effort: they are spe- fering to the gods’ pettiness and fear of human power. More cific explanations or justifications of suffering in a world be- common than an outright denial of the deity’s justice, how- lieved to be ruled by a morally good God. ever, is the claim that God’s justice is somehow qualitatively The theodicy problem. The “problem of theodicy” different from our ordinary human ideas of right and wrong. arises when the experienced reality of suffering is juxtaposed Words like justice or goodness when applied to God have no with two sets of beliefs traditionally associated with ethical relation to their meaning when applied to human beings. . One is the belief that God is absolutely good What would be regarded as wickedness on the part of a and compassionate. The other is the belief that he controls human being—for example, the slaughter of children—may all events in history, that he is both all-powerful (omnipo- not be unjust where God is concerned. We shall see that this tent) and all-knowing (omniscient). When combined with view has had some currency in Islam and in Calvinist Chris- some other implicit beliefs—for example, the belief that a tianity. good being would try to prevent suffering insofar as he is Denials of God’s . Rather than compromise able—these various ideas seem contradictory. They appear the divine goodness, some religious traditions have avoided to form a logical “trilemma,” in the sense that, while any two theodicy by qualifying the divine power. This view is espe- of these sets of ideas can be accepted, the addition of the cially characteristic of religious dualisms, which explain the third renders the whole logically inconsistent. Thus, it seems fact of suffering by positing a power or principle of disorder that it can be affirmed that God is all-good and all-powerful, that wars incessantly with God for control of the world. In but not also that there is suffering in the world. Similarly, Zoroastrianism, for example, imperfections and suffering in the fact of suffering can be affirmed along with God’s good- this world are traced to an ongoing cosmic struggle between ness, but the insistence on God’s omnipotence appears to the good deity, Ahura Mazda¯ (O¯ hrmazd), and his evil antag- render the whole ensemble of beliefs untenable. Theodicy onist, Angra Mainyu (Ahriman). Similarly, the gnostic reli- may be thought of as the effort to resist the conclusion that gion Manichaeism explained suffering in terms of a struggle such a logical trilemma exists. It aims to show that traditional between a “spiritual” god of goodness and light and an evil claims about God’s power and goodness are compatible with “creator” demon associated with darkness and matter. the fact of suffering. Apart from dualism there are other ways by which reli- Alternative definitions. Some writers have tried to ex- gions can deny God’s omnipotence. One of the most impor- pand the term theodicy beyond its classical Western philo- tant of these is found in Buddhism, where suffering is traced sophical and theological usage. The sociologist Max Weber, to the automatic operation of the moral law of retribution for example, sought to redefine the term in order to render known as karman. I shall return to karman in connection it applicable to religious traditions that do not involve belief with Buddhist teaching as a whole, but for now it may be in one just, all-powerful deity. In Weber’s usage, the theodicy noted that karman eliminates the need to justify God (or the problem referred to any situation of inexplicable or unmerit- gods) in a world of suffering because it places that suffering ed suffering, and theodicy itself referred to any rationale for almost wholly beyond divine control. explaining suffering. This wider definition has value for the Denials of the reality of suffering. The final major way comparative study of religion. Nevertheless, without neglect- by which to avoid the problem of theodicy is to deny the ing other religious responses to suffering, I shall here be using third component in the trilemma, that is, that there really the term theodicy in its classical sense, as the effort to defend is suffering in the world. This position may seem impossible God’s justice and power in a world marred by suffering. since unhappiness, illness, and death are all around us. Yet Dissolutions of the theodicy problem. One reason for in various ways, religious thinkers and religious traditions holding to the narrower definition of theodicy is that it al- have sometimes denied the ultimate reality or significance of lows us to see that theodicy in its classical sense is very much suffering. The philosopher Spinoza, for example, affirmed a feature of ethical monotheism. Theodicy in this sense does that the world seems filled with evil only because it is regard- not arise in traditions that fundamentally deny or reject any ed from a narrow and erroneous human point of view. From one of the three major sets of ideas that form the theodicy the divine perspective, however, the world forms a necessary

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION THEODICY 9113 and perfect whole. Some Hindu thinkers have also denied created a world in which these goods, with their attendant the reality of suffering by advocating adoption of the divine evils, exist. point of view. According to the Vedantic tradition, what we call evil or suffering is really an aspect of ma¯ya¯, the cosmic While those involved in the enterprise of theodicy fre- principle of dynamism and individuation. This principle is quently focus on one good or the other in their defense of not ultimate, and the sage who attains the divine perspective God, theodicy is inherently an eclectic activity. A variety of sees ma¯ya¯ as an illusory process that does not really affect the distinct values and arguments are commonly advanced to de- eternal . This teaching renders the world of suffering in- fend God’s goodness. Some of the major theodicies listed consequential. here are not even theodicies in the most precise sense since they involve less the identification of specific values whose Classical theodicies. Those familiar with the Western existence justifies suffering than the assertion that such values religious traditions may be unpersuaded by these various dis- might exist. In any case, none of these classical theodicies is solutions of the theodicy problem. They may find that some necessarily exclusive of the others, and adherents of ethical of these positions, such as the denial that God is just in hu- monotheism usually hold several of the following positions. manly understandable terms, seriously jeopardize a religious The free-will theodicy. One of the most powerful and faith based on belief in God’s goodness. Other dissolutions most frequently adduced explanations of suffering is the free- may seem to ignore the importance of the evil that God seeks will theodicy. Those who hold this position maintain that to overcome or may erode confidence in God’s ability to a world containing creatures who freely perform good ac- master that evil. Yet we have seen that the alternative posi- tions and who freely respond to their creator’s goodness is tion—affirmation of God’s absolute goodness and power in far better than a world of automatons who always do what a world of serious suffering—appears to be illogical. Defend- is right because they cannot do what is wrong. Now, while ers of ethical monotheism, however, have usually refused to God can create free creatures, if they are truly free he cannot accept this apparent illogicality. With varying degrees of self- causally determine what they do. To create a creature freely consciousness, they have maintained that the alleged contra- capable of doing what is morally right, therefore, God must diction between monotheism and suffering does not exist. create a creature who is also capable of doing what is morally This view underlies the specific theodicies that have been wrong. As it turned out, some of the free creatures God creat- elaborated to defend belief in a just and all-powerful God. ed have exercised their freedom to do wrong, and this is the The key to these positions is an understanding of what source of the suffering we see around us. Some of this suffer- it means to say that God is omnipotent. Typically, it is ar- ing is directly caused by these wicked beings, while some re- gued that while God can do anything he wills himself to do sults when they are justly punished by God for their conduct. and anything that is capable of being done, he cannot do As easily stated as this theodicy is, it has many complexi- what is logically impossible. This is not because his power ties, and it has frequently been challenged. Recent debate has is limited but only because what is logically impossible can- been especially vigorous. Philosophers such as not really be thought or conceived. Thus, God cannot make and J. L. Mackie, for example, have questioned the link in a “square circle,” and we cannot ask or desire him to do so, this argument between free will and the possibility of wrong- because the very idea of a square circle is nonsense. Only the doing. Since the conduct of free beings is not unshaped by accident of language that makes a “square circle” seem as pos- causal factors, they contend, God might have molded human sible as a “seedless apple” leads us to think that God’s inabili- nature and the physical environment in such a way that free ty here represents some limit to his power. beings never do wrong. Or, they argue, since it is logically With this as a basis, it is further argued that the claim possible for any free being never to do wrong, there is noth- that God’s goodness and power are logically incompatible ing illogical in God’s having created a whole race of free be- with suffering is not correct, because it is not true that an ings none of whom ever does wrong. However, other philos- all-good, all-powerful being would necessarily eliminate all ophers, notably Nelson Pike and , have suffering from the world. What is true is that such a being rejected these arguments, claiming either that they run would want to bring about the greatest state of goodness in counter to our commonsense understanding of freedom, the world. But creating such a state may involve the creation which involves essentially an idea of nondetermination by of some specific goods whose existence logically entails the causal forces, or that they mistakenly derive from ambiguities possibility of certain evils, and these evils may be the source in what it means to say that God can create free beings who of the suffering we see around us. never do wrong. While it is true, they would say, that God can create a race of free beings none of whom ever happens The enterprise of theodicy, therefore, essentially in- to do wrong, it is not true that God can create free beings volves the identification of those eminently valuable goods and bring about their never doing wrong. Whether wrong whose existence may entail certain states of suffering or evil. is done depends on the beings themselves. This leads these Proponents of specific theodicies usually contend that a philosophers to the conclusion that God must expose the world without these goods would be of lesser value than one world to the possibility of suffering and evil if he chooses to that contains them, and so God is morally justified in having create beings who are genuinely free.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION 9114 THEODICY

A more traditional and long-standing objection to the foundly true, that serious suffering can stimulate the devel- free-will theodicy is that it does not apparently handle the opment of our capacities and character. But this is not always problem of natural (or physical) evil as opposed to moral evil. so. Sometimes suffering embitters, diminishes, or destroys Moral evil may be thought of as states of suffering traceable people. Finally, while growth in our understanding of na- to the agency of free beings, such as war, racism, or genocide. ture’s laws is valuable, we must ask whether this knowledge is that evil or suffering that is not traceable to can be justified if its price has been the wasting of lives down acts or volitions of free beings, including such things as earth- through countless generations. What kind of education is it, quakes, floods, and pestilence. Even if it is granted that this some ask, that kills so many of the students? distinction is not sharp (some of the damage wrought by Eschatological (or recompense) theodicies. Many of the earthquakes, for example, is the result of shoddy construc- difficulties of the educative theodicies derive from the brevity tion techniques and other forms of human ignorance or ava- of human life. If an individual’s existence were to continue rice), clearly there are instances of suffering utterly beyond beyond death, some of these problems might be overcome. human control. Because this suffering is not traceable to Then, unmerited or unproductive suffering might be placed human abuse of freedom, these critics contend, God must in a larger context of experience and meaning. Eschatological ultimately be held responsible for its existence. theodicies are based on the conviction that human life tran- Defenders of the free-will theodicy have responded to scends personal death and that the righteous eventually re- this objection in various ways. They have sometimes traced ceive their full reward. (It is also frequently maintained that natural evil to the agency of demonic beings (fallen angels the wicked receive appropriate punishment.) These theodi- or Satan) whose own malevolence results from a perverse ex- cies differ from one another on the question of just when or ercise of free will. They have also sometimes argued that nat- how such recompense occurs. The eschaton (“last thing”) can ural evils are ongoing punishments for wrongful acts by hu- be envisioned as a historical epoch that begins at the end of mankind’s first parents, so that suffering is a result of history, a time when the righteous are resurrected in renewed . Despite occasional efforts at their revival, these bodies. Or it can be understood as an eternal heavenly realm responses have little currency today. As a result, many propo- that one enters after death. In either case, eschatological the- nents of the free-will theodicy find themselves forced to turn odicies assume that the blissful future life more than com- elsewhere to supplement their defense of God. They fre- pensates for present suffering. quently resort to one of the educative theodicies. Eschatological theodicies clearly play an important part Educative theodicies. The force of the educative theodi- in reconciling many religious believers to the fact of suffer- cies lies in their ability to justify at least some of the suffering ing. Nevertheless, this kind of theodicy faces many difficul- experienced by innocent persons. This suffering exists, it is ties today. Some persons regard the idea of an as in- argued, because it serves to enrich human experience, to credible. Others reject the idea that future bliss can build moral character, or to develop human capacities. compensate for present misery. They point out that while suffering may come to an end, the painful memory of suffer- Within the broad assertion that suffering has educative ing endures. Such novelists as Dostoevskii, Camus, and Elie value, at least several distinct claims can be identified. It is Wiesel have also asked whether anything can compensate for sometimes maintained, for example, that modest suffering the massive suffering inflicted on children during the perse- enhances our appreciation of life’s satisfactions (as separation cutions of recent times. from loved ones can enrich moments spent with them). On a far deeper level, it is argued that even very serious suffering Theodicy deferred: The mystery of suffering. Long before can toughen us to adversity and can help us develop depth Auschwitz, religious believers recognized that any effort to of character, compassion, or new capabilities. Finally, it is justify severe suffering in terms of identifiable values risks common in this connection to stress the value of a world trivializing the enormity of human anguish. Rather than re- based upon regular laws of nature. Certainly, much suffering nounce their faith in God’s justice and power, however, results from the operation of natural laws. Had God wished some of these believers have chosen to deny that the mystery to, he might have created a world in which no regular laws of suffering can be fully understood. They have preferred to existed—a world in which the flames threatening a sleeping defer comprehension and to trust in God’s ultimate goodness family suddenly turned cool. But such a world, it is argued, and sovereignty. Frequently they have connected this with would be a magical garden with little opportunity for growth their eschatological expectations and have looked forward, in human knowledge. The human race would forever remain not just to recompense but to a final understanding of God’s in intellectual infancy. This explanation in terms of natural purposes in the world. laws is also sometimes advanced to explain the puzzling Very often, those who stress the mystery of suffering also problem of animal suffering. emphasize the limited nature of human understanding and These educative theodicies are important, but their lim- the enormous differences that exist between God and hu- its are apparent. Many of life’s satisfactions do not require mans. This position should not be confused, however, with suffering to be enjoyed. Good health can be appreciated the view that God’s justice is somehow qualitatively different without the experience of disease. It is true, and perhaps pro- from our own. The latter perspective dissolves the problem

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION THEODICY 9115 of theodicy by placing God beyond moral accountability, rying degrees of emphasis, they contain many of the posi- whereas the view discussed here insists that God’s justice will tions we have reviewed. However, the free-will theodicy is ultimately be vindicated. Faith is not the belief in a God be- probably to the fore. This view is firmly anchored in the ac- yond justice but the belief that God’s justice will finally be count of history given in Genesis, where a world created as upheld. “good” or “very good” by God is viewed as corrupted by Communion theodicies. Emphasis on the mystery of suf- human sinfulness. From the first deliberate but unnecessary fering and the need to defer our understanding of it may help transgression of the divine commandment by , to sustain religious faith in the face of evil; but it also imposes we follow a process of recurrent and accelerating wrongdoing new burdens on that faith, because human beings may come that vitiates the goodness of nature and that pits person to regard themselves as pawns in a cosmic game, and God against person. While the account in Genesis does not answer may come to be viewed as distant and indifferent. To offset all the questions that troubled later thinkers (why, for exam- this, religious traditions have sometimes presented suffering ple, God chose to create human beings in the first place), it itself as an occasion for direct relationship, collaboration, and does place primary blame for both natural and moral evil on even communion with God. humankind’s abuse of freedom. Several related positions may be identified here. One re- Much the same view is conveyed in the portions of the fuses to accept the seeming distance of God in the mystery Bible that were influenced by the Deuteronomic writer and of suffering by insisting on God’s presence with the sufferer the early prophets. Here, suffering is explained in simple re- in the midst of anguish. God is a compassionate God, who tributive terms: loyalty to the moral and religious conditions suffers with his creatures and who is most intensely present of the covenant brings prosperity and peace; wickedness when he seems farthest away. This position may not explain brings plague, famine, and war. Since the prophetic literature why God allows suffering in the first place, but it comforts often aims to summon the sinful nation to covenantal obedi- and sustains the believer in the moment of trial. Moreover, ence, it is recognized that the connection between conduct since God is a suffering God, suffering also affords the believ- and its consequences is not always immediate. The result is er a unique opportunity to obey and to imitate his creator. an immanent eschatological theodicy based on confidence in Those who suffer for a righteous purpose do God’s will and a prompt, future balancing of moral accounts. Thus said Isa- make known his presence in the world. Suffering thus pro- iah (Is. 3:10–11): vides the most intense opportunity for collaboration and Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for communion between God and humankind. they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wick- With this emphasis on communion, the enterprise of ed! It shall be ill with him, for what his hands have done theodicy comes full circle. That which first threw open to shall be done to him. question God’s goodness and power, the bitter suffering of This simple equation between suffering and punishment was innocent persons, now becomes the supreme expression of not unchallenged in biblical thinking, and the disasters of the love between God and humans. Unlike the mystical dissolu- period from the Babylonian exile onward, when the Israelites tions of the theodicy problem that were looked at earlier, the were often most intensely loyal to the covenant, forced an fact of suffering is not here denied. Instead, the reality of suf- explanation of seemingly innocent suffering. In wisdom liter- fering and its importance in human life are heightened. But ature, especially the Book of Job, the older theodicy is reject- suffering itself is transvalued: what is usually viewed as an ex- ed. Job is an innocent man, blameless and righteous in every perience to be avoided is now seen as an opportunity for in- way; yet he suffers (Jb. 1–2). The prose epilogue, apparently tense religious fulfillment. appended at a later date, seeks to maintain the retributive TEACHINGS ON THEODICY IN THE HISTORY OF . schema by suggesting that Job is eventually more than com- These theoretical positions on suffering and theodicy are not pensated for his trials (42:10–17), but the book’s most deci- just abstract logical possibilities. They find concrete expres- sive response to suffering borders on a radical dissolution of sion in the life and teachings of historical religious communi- the theodicy problem. Answering Job out of a whirlwind, ties. Religions may even be characterized in terms of which God asks, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of of these theoretical positions they favor. While all of these the earth?” (38:4). A litany of God’s mighty deeds in nature positions may have some presence in a tradition, one or an- and history follows, with the suggestion that man is too puny other is usually emphasized and serves as a distinguishing a creature to question his maker’s justice. Job repents his pre- trait. Even closely related traditions like Judaism and Chris- sumption: “I have uttered what I did not understand, things tianity evidence their uniqueness by subtle preferences too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (42:3). among these different theodicies. The Book of Job may be read as an abandonment of the Judaism. In Jewish tradition, the theodicy problem is very effort to comprehend God’s justice, as an assertion that addressed not only in Hebrew scriptures but in rabbinic a creature cannot ask its maker to render account. Or, less teachings. radically, it may be read as a deferred theodicy—not the Biblical foundations. The Hebrew scriptures provide claim that God is unjust or beyond justice but that we are the basis for both Jewish and Christian theodicies. With va- unprepared here and now to fathom God’s righteous ways.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION 9116 THEODICY

The repeated assertions of God’s control of the wicked sup- This stress on the positive value of suffering is empha- port this interpretation. In any case, the more radical stance, sized in a series of rabbinic teachings that go beyond the view amounting to a dissolution of the theodicy problem, finds of suffering as retribution and emphasize its educative di- expression elsewhere in the wisdom literature. Ecclesiastes, for mensions or the opportunity it provides for obedience to example, repeatedly emphasizes the obscurity of God’s ways God and communion with him. Sometimes, for example, in dealing with humans. Occasionally the text despairs of suffering is seen as having disciplinary value. Frequently al- there being any justice in the world: “one fate comes to all, luded to is Proverbs 3:11, which teaches that God is like a to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil” father who chastises a well-loved son. EAqiva’ ben Yosef, mar- (Eccl. 9:2). tyred by the Romans in the Bar Kokhba Revolt, is said to have laughed during his torture. When asked by his tormen- These dramatic responses of the wisdom tradition are tor why he did this, EAqiva’ replied that all his life he had not the only positions of the exilic and postexilic period. In been reciting the ShemaE, the ritual formula in which the some of the later prophetic writings, especially in “Second pious Jew is commanded to love God with all his heart, soul, Isaiah,” a complex, new theodicy appears: the idea of the suf- and might, and now, amidst his tortures, he realized that he fering servant. This is the innocent “man of sorrows,” an “of- had finally been given the opportunity to fulfill this com- fering for sin” who bears the sins of others and is “wounded mandment. For EAqiva’, as well as for many Jews who looked for our transgressions” (Is. 53:3–10). Just who this figure is to him, suffering becomes an occasion for divine grace. remains unclear. Is he the prophet himself or some other Amidst suffering, these Jews came to see the presence of a charismatic figure? Is he the nation as a whole or a righteous God whose purpose, at a price in suffering to himself and remnant? Whatever the answer, this idea embodies a new to his people, was to render Israel a holy community. theodicy, combining the free–will theodicy with elements of the educative and communion theodicies. Suffering is still Christianity. The crucifixion of Jesus clearly forms the produced by sin, but the servant suffers vicariously. He bears focal point for all Christian thinking about suffering. But the his stripes to absorb the punishment of others, to highlight interpretation of this event varies widely in Christian think- and communicate the consequence of sin and God’s wrath ing, as do the theodicies that it brings forth. against it. His suffering teaches others and is also a unique form of service to God. Finally, in a bid to the eschatological The New Testament. Although the problem of suffering theodicy, it is promised that this servant will ultimately have is everywhere present in the earliest Christian writings, what his reward. He will be given a “portion with the great” and theodicies we can identify in the New Testament writings are will “divide the spoil with the strong” (Is. 53:12). largely implicit. Expectedly, many of the theodicies we exam- ined in the context of biblical and rabbinic thought are clear- In the latest texts of the Hebrew Bible, as well as in ly assumed. Particular emphasis, for example, is given to as- many writings of the intertestamental period, these eschato- pects of the free-will theodicy. It is true that the crucifixion logical and recompense themes move to the fore with the ap- provides for Christians decisive evidence that not all who suf- pearance of apocalyptic writings, such as the Book of Daniel. fer are guilty. Nevertheless, the death of Jesus is also the re- In these, history is viewed as moving toward a final cosmic sult of almost every form of human wickedness. Factional- resolution, when God will smash the empires of the wicked ism, nationalism, militarism, religious hypocrisy, greed, and raise the righteous dead to “everlasting life” (Dn. 12:2). personal disloyalty, and pride all conspire here to effect the The Hebrew scriptures thus draw to a close with a reassertion death of an innocent man. of the ultimate connection between suffering and sin. The fact that Christ is clearly blameless provokes the Rabbinic teaching. Many of the motifs found in the He- further question of why he should be allowed to suffer at all. brew scriptures are continued in rabbinic thinking. Foremost At least several answers appear throughout the New Testa- once again is the free–will theodicy and the link between suf- ment, some of which are also applicable to other innocent fering and sin: “If a man sees that painful suffering visits victims. On one level, in many New Testament texts a quali- him,” says the Talmud, “let him examine his conduct” fied dualism makes its appearance. Evil and suffering are (B.T., Ber. 5a). Or again, more radically, “There is no suffer- traced to the agency of demonic forces or to Satan (e.g., Mk. ing without sin” (B.T., Shab. 55a). It follows from this that 5:1–13; Mt. 9:32–34, 12:22–24). On another level, the es- any apparent discrepancy between conduct and its reward chatological theodicy is vigorously reasserted, with Christ’s must be overcome or denied. Eschatology becomes acutely resurrection furnishing proof that the righteous are able to important. The righteous may look forward to the world to vanquish all the forces of wickedness and to surmount suffer- come (’olam ha-ba’), where all inequities will be overcome ing and death. The apostle Paul typically insists that the Res- and the wicked must fear hell (Gehenna). Whatever observ- urrection is a source of personal hope and confidence for all able suffering one experiences may be regarded as expiation who follow Christ (1 Cor. 5:15–19; 2 Cor. 4:14). Side by side of those inevitable sins that all human beings commit. Suf- with this, and found everywhere from the Gospels to Revela- fering thus prepares one for final reward: “Beloved are suffer- tion, is a vivid apocalyptic expectation. Christ is the “Son of ings, for as sacrifices are atoning so is suffering atoning” man” whose life (and death) will usher in the kingdom of (Mekilta’ de Rabbi Yishma Ee’l 2. 280). God. In this kingdom, worldly hierarchies of reward will be

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION THEODICY 9117 overturned: “Many that are first will be last and the last will questioning the creator (Rom. 9:19–21) are expanded to a be first” (Mk. 10:31; Mt. 5:19). doctrine that places God altogether beyond measurement by human justice. With this denial of God’s accountability, the Also running through many texts are elements of the ed- theodicy problem is dissolved. Not all Christians, however, ucative theodicy. The letter to the Hebrews and the letter of have accepted this extreme view, and repeated efforts have James sound the note that suffering is sent by God as a test been made to explain and to justify God’s creation of beings and a discipline of those he loves (Heb. 12:3–13; Jas. 1:2–4, capable of sin. 12). Paul continues this theme, adding to it elements of a communion theodicy. Christians should rejoice in suffering In his book Evil and the God of Love (London, 1977), because it produces endurance, character, and hope (Rom. argues that at least two major responses to this 5:3–5). Suffering also presents the opportunity to imitate question may be identified in the Christian tradition. One Christ (1 Cor. 11:1), who has shown that power is made per- is traceable to Augustine and constitutes the historically fect not in strength but in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). This em- dominant line of thinking about the problem. (A similar phasis on Christ’s fellow-suffering is a constant theme in view, for example, is taken by and many Paul’s letters. other Catholic theologians.) It begins by explaining evil in Finally, in Paul’s writings we find an important extrapo- creation not as a substantial reality in itself (as the lation from the free-will theodicy: emphasis on the universal- Manichaeans had contended) but as an aspect of nonbeing. ity of sin and the universal deservedness of suffering. This Thus, evil does not stem from God but represents the un- theme is not altogether new—it has deep roots in biblical avoidable and nonculpable absence of his goodness or pres- and Jewish thought—but it is radicalized by Paul, especially ence in mere “created” things (the doctrine of evil as a priva- in his Letter to the Romans (3:9–10, 23). The implications tio boni). Why God should have created free human beings of this teaching for the theodicy problem are dramatic. Since is explained aesthetically in terms of the desirability of his all are sinners, what is extraordinary is not that some suffer creating a graded hierarchy of being. Once created and given in a world ruled by God, but that anyone is spared the divine every inducement for obedience, however, human beings wrath (Rom. 9:22–24). The fact that not all are punished is nevertheless inexplicably turned away from God toward explained in terms of God’s grace being manifest in Christ’s nonbeing. As a result, they have been justly punished, and vicarious suffering and in God’s willingness to suspend the the suffering that results (within a retributive theory of pun- punishment for sin (Rom. 3:24). This teaching clearly builds ishment) is fitting, as is the eternal damnation of those not on dimensions of theodicy encountered in the Hebrew scrip- rescued by God’s grace. Indeed, the whole outcome is some- tures, including the suffering servant motif (now applied sin- times justified by Augustine in terms of its overall moral bal- gularly to Christ). Nevertheless, it has the effect of revolu- ance and aesthetic perfection. tionizing Christian thinking about theodicy by converting Contrasted with this view is a position that Hick asso- the mystery of suffering into the mystery of divine grace. ciates with (c. 130–202) but that also has resonance Subsequent developments. It is impossible to review in the writings of (1768–1834) and briefly all the contributions of later Christian thinking to F. R. Tennant (1866–1957). It, too, traces suffering to the theodicy. Suffice it to say that the major lines of thought abuse of freedom. But its explanation of the place of both build upon those established in the New Testament. Paul’s freedom and transgression in the divine plan is quite differ- ideas, especially, play a major role. Augustine (354–430) de- ent from that of the Augustinian tradition. Here the Fall is veloped Paul’s suggestions into a fully elaborated doctrine of fully within God’s intention. God has knowingly created im- original sin. According to Augustine, Adam and Eve’s trans- perfect beings who are distanced from the divine splendor gression and punishment, “sin and its penalty,” are to be and destined to fall, but he is justified in doing this because viewed as passed on to their descendants through sexual re- he has the moral purpose of affording these beings the oppor- production. Because everyone thus “merits” punishment, tunity for growth and free development so that they may es- emphasis is on God’s grace and his election of those who are tablish a mature personal relationship with him. In this view, spared a just fate. Election itself is explained in terms of di- the world is a “vale of soul making” and it is possible to apply vine predestination, in accordance with which God has eter- to the Fall the words of the Easter liturgy: “O felix Culpa nally decreed who shall be spared the punishment merited quae talem ac tantum meruit habere redemptorem” (“O for- by all. tunate crime, which merited such and so great a redeemer!”). A further implication of the Irenaean theodicy, in Hick’s This position clearly does not solve the theodicy prob- view, is that it casts doubt on older retributive theories of lem entirely, and in some respects the problem is sharpened punishment that may justify the consignment of some per- in a new way. The question becomes not why human beings sons to eternal suffering in hell. The Irenaean theodicy sug- have incurred suffering but why God, in his foreknowledge gests a more generous “universalist” eschatology, which sees and power, should have allowed the whole disastrous course all who have lived as eventually becoming “children of God.” of events proceeding from the Fall to have occurred in the first place. Sometimes the legitimacy of this question is de- Hick himself expresses a strong preference for this view. nied. In Calvinism, for example, Paul’s admonitions against While not all contemporary Christian thinkers share this

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION 9118 THEODICY preference, it is reasonable to say that there exists among con- the angels. These will be opened following the general resur- temporary Christian theologians a predilection to stress rection on the day of judgment (yawm al-d¯ın). Those whose God’s moral purpose in creating free beings and to see God record is wanting shall descend to the Fire, while the righ- himself as personally involved in the venture and risk of teous shall dwell in the Garden (al-jannah) where their bliss human freedom. is depicted in spiritual as well as vividly material terms (surah 9:74; 75:23; 52:24; 56:17f.; 76:11–21). Islam. In his book The House of Islam (1975), Kenneth Cragg observes that because of its emphasis on God’s tran- Later developments. If the QurDa¯n’s perspective on suf- scendence, Islam “does not find a theodicy necessary either fering and its implicit theodicy display substantial similarity for its theology or its worship” (p. 16). With one or two im- to some familiar positions in the Hebrew Bible and New portant qualifications, this is a reasonably accurate assess- Testament, subsequent Islamic thought strikes off on a path ment of the state of theodicy in a tradition that insists on sur- of its own. From the eighth century CE onward, the free-will render to the divine will (one meaning of isla¯m) and finds position becomes involved in a series of bitter disputes be- it blasphemous to hold that God is accountable to human tween the MuEtazil¯ı school of “rationalists,” or “humanists,” moral judgments. Nevertheless, while theodicy has not been and more orthodox defenders of God’s sovereignty (includ- a major preoccupation of Muslims, there are, especially in ing his role as sole creator of human acts). Entangled in extra- the earliest texts, implicit efforts to understand the sources neous political conflicts, this debate continued for several of suffering and why God might allow it to exist. centuries, until the victory of the orthodox position through the work of Abu¯ al-H: asan al-AshEar¯ı (d. 935 CE) and others. The QurDa¯n. We know that one of the most persistent What emerged was an extreme predestinarian position, ac- explanations and justifications of human suffering traces that cording to which not only suffering or blessedness but the suffering to free creatures’ abuse of their freedom. At first acts and volitions that lead to them are totally in the hands sight, this free-will theodicy seems to have little footing in of God. Al-AshEar¯ı himself tried to secure some limited room the QurDa¯n because of its repeated emphasis on God’s sover- for human responsibility through a doctrine of “acquisition,” eignty and his absolute control over human behavior. In according to which acts proceed from God but attach them- su¯rah 6:125, for example, we read: selves to the will of the individual. Nevertheless, this teaching Whomsoever God desires to guide, He expands his remains overwhelmingly deterministic. An oft-quoted tale breast to Islam; whomsoever he desires to lead astray, presenting an imaginary conversation in heaven between He makes his breast narrow, tight.... God, an adult, and a child captures the resulting orthodox Or again, in 61:5: view. The child asks God, “Why did you give that man a higher place than myself?” God replies, “He has done many When they swerved, God caused their hearts to swerve; good works.” The child then asks, “Why did you let me die and God guides never the people of the ungodly. so young that I was prevented from doing good?” God re- Although passages like these shape the later emphasis on pre- sponds, “I knew that you would grow up to be a sinner; destination in Islamic thought, they may not have this mean- therefore, it was better that you should die a child.” At that ing in the QurDa¯n. For one thing, these utterances are fre- instant a cry arises from all those condemned to the depths quently used to explain the recalcitrance of Muh: ammad’s of hell, “Why, O Lord! did you not let us die before we be- opponents, and thus are more properly understood as affir- came sinners.” mations of God’s ultimate control of the wicked than as In the context of such , all responsibility for philosophical disquisitions on freedom. In addition, these good and evil devolves upon God himself. Lest it be thought, passages are offset by many others in which a substantial however, that God may legitimately be accused of injustice, measure of human freedom, initiative, and accountability is Islamic orthodoxy hastens to add that in his sovereignty, assumed. “He leads none astray save the ungodly,” says surah God may not be subjected to human moral judgment. God’s 2:24, while su¯rah 4:80 makes what seems to be an explicit command is itself the defining feature of right, and what statement of the free-will theodicy: God wills can never be morally impugned. The great medi- Whatever good visits thee, it is of God; whatever evil eval theologian Abu¯ H: a¯mid al-Ghaza¯l¯ı (d. 1111) affirms that visits thee is of thyself. “there is no analogy between his justice and the justice of D creatures.... He never encounters any right in another be- In addition, the Qur a¯n displays two other themes associated sides himself so that his dealing with it might be a doing of with the free-will theodicy. One is a view of suffering as a any wrong.” test of righteousness. More than once the question is asked, “Do the people reckon that they will be left to say ‘We be- This emphasis on God’s omnipotence does not mean lieve,’ and will not be tried?” (29:1; 3:135; cf. 14:6; 2:46). that Muslims (any more than Calvinists) view God as a capri- Because such testing can sometimes lead to martyrdom and cious despot. On the contrary, their constant affirmation is death, the QurDa¯n also supports a vivid eschatological expec- that God is “merciful and compassionate.” Yet in the en- tation. Those who withstand the test shall have their reward. counter with suffering, a human’s response must not be to All human deeds are said to be recorded in books kept by complain, to question, or even to try to defend God. Hence,

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION THEODICY 9119 for Islamic orthodoxy at least, theodicy remains an undevel- times presented as powerful, righteous figures who reward oped dimension of the religious life. Its place is taken by the and punish human beings and to whose compassion one may sentiment conveyed by the QurDa¯nic formula “H: asbuna¯ appeal. Varun: a, in particular, bears many of the marks of a Alla¯h” (“God is sufficient unto us”). supreme deity, and it is possible to see here an implicit free- Hinduism and Buddhism. It would ordinarily not be will theodicy with human suffering traced to transgression advisable to lump together any treatment of such complex of God’s righteous law. Nevertheless, these lines of thought traditions as Hinduism and Buddhism. But where the issue are not developed in later Hindu thinking, and in the post- of theodicy is concerned, this approach has much to recom- Vedic period, when karman moves to the fore, even the gods mend it since it emphasizes the fact, already mentioned, that are subordinated to it. According to one tradition of Hindu both traditions share a common perspective on suffering. mythology, for example, the god Indra slays a wicked brah- This is the view that suffering derives from the operation of man, but, in so doing, he becomes subject to the moral pen- the automatic law of moral retribution known as karman alty for brahmanicide. In an effort to free himself of this bur- working in conjunction with a process of . In den, Indra ends by inflicting suffering on human beings. his Sociology of Religion (Boston, 1963), Max Weber charac- Thus, even the goodness of the gods is compromised as they terized karman as “the most radical solution of the problem find themselves powerless before the operation of this moral of theodicy” (p. 147), but this reflects Weber’s own broader law of cause and effect. It is true that in popular and mytho- use of the term theodicy to cover any explanation of suffering. logical traditions the gods are frequently seen as able to free In fact, because karman traces suffering to one’s own themselves from the effects of karman. They are also viewed thoughts and deeds, and because it denies the gods any in- as able to benefit their devotees. But what power they have volvement in or control over the process of suffering, it is not in this regard does not usually extend, within the world of a theodicy in our sense at all. Rather, it is a fundamental dis- karman, to helping human beings escape automatic punish- solution of the theodicy problem as we encounter it in ethical ment for serious sin. monotheism. Neither can the gods be held responsible in these tradi- How decisive a resolution of the problem of suffering tions for the shape of reality. Buddhism explicitly denies the are the combined teachings of karman and reincarnation gods any role in creation. The universe is conceived of as an may be illustrated by a famous tale concerning the assassina- ongoing, eternal, and cyclical process of becoming, and only tion of Maha¯moggalla¯na, a respected disciple of the Buddha. an error on the part of the first-born god Brahma allows him When the Buddha was asked to explain Moggalla¯na’s brutal to think himself its creator. Hinduism gives a more active death, he replied that, while undeserved in terms of his pres- role to the gods in this cyclic process of and devo- ent life, it was altogether suited to his conduct in a previous lution. The world proceeds from Vis:n: u and is actively existence. In that life, said the Buddha, Moggalla¯na had been brought forth by Brahma¯. But this process is not understood guilty of cruelly killing his elderly parents. (This tale is re- in moral terms. Instead, creation is a process whereby every printed in Henry Clarke Warren’s Buddhism in Translation, potentiality within the great God is allowed to manifest itself New York, 1963, pp. 221–226.) The implication of this tale in the world of differentiation. This means that everything is that in a world ruled by karman there is no such thing as in creation, blessings and suffering, the gods and the demons, “innocent suffering.” All suffering (even animal suffering) is all good and all evil, represent the working out of the divine deserved. We have seen that the free-will theodicy has some- plenitude. If creation is conceived in anthropomorphic terms times tended toward this same conclusion, but in all the at all, it is not a morally intentioned act for which God is Western traditions where this theodicy has been espoused, accountable but an expression of the deity’s spontaneous cre- there have always been voices affirming the reality of inno- ativity or play (l¯ıla¯). cent suffering. In Hinduism and Buddhism, however, these voices have been silenced by a drive toward the total and There is, therefore, in neither of these traditions any lucid explanation of worldly suffering afforded by karman. question of morally justifying the gods, and there is no real theodicy. Instead, the paramount religious questions become A further implication of this teaching is that the gods how (in popular Hinduism especially) one can procure some may be neither blamed nor appealed to when suffering oc- favor from the gods, how one can produce good karman, and curs. In Buddhism, belief in karman helps explain the subor- how, finally, one can altogether escape sam: sa¯ra, the world of dinate place of God or the gods in the schema of salvation. karmicly determined becoming. This latter question be- Not only may divinity be attained by any righteous individu- comes particularly important when it is realized that within al, but the gods themselves, through sins that create bad kar- sam: sa¯ra suffering is virtually inescapable. While deeds that man, may plunge from their lofty state. As a result, it makes generate good karman may lead to prosperity or bliss in some no sense to look to the gods for release from suffering, since future life, it is almost certain that such a state will not en- they are as subject to suffering as anyone else. Nor can they dure. Because every transgression brings its penalty, and be- be held responsible for what suffering occurs. cause those who are spiritually or materially well placed are Hinduism appears somewhat less certain about these more likely to transgress, existence in sam: sa¯ra is an endless conclusions. In the earlier Vedic texts, the gods are some- shuttle between momentary respite and prolonged misery.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION 9120 THEODICY

We need not review in detail here the various Hindu certain aspects of our deepest moral experience—for exam- and Buddhist answers to the question of how one may escape ple, the experienced relationship between parents and chil- sam: sa¯ra. These answers constitute the core teachings of their dren—and uses these to illuminate the relationship between traditions. They range from Hinduism’s stress on the pro- God and his creatures. Unless this ultimate moral basis and found recognition that one’s soul (a¯tman) is identical with intention is kept in mind, neither theodicy’s purpose nor its Being-itself (), and hence basically unaffected by the persistence will be well understood. flux of becoming, to Buddhism’s opposing insistence that there is no eternal soul capable of being affected by sam: sa¯ra SEE ALSO Afterlife; Evil; Free Will and Predestination; Holocaust, The, article on Jewish Theological Responses; (the doctrine of ana¯tman). Despite the enormous differences Karman; L¯ıla¯; Sam: sa¯ra; Suffering. between these teachings, they have much in common: suffer- ing is viewed as endemic to the world process, and the goal BIBLIOGRAPHY is extrication from this process. Suffering is not a reason for Useful surveys of classic Western philosophical and theological praising or blaming God. The legacy of karman thus colors discussions of theodicy can be found in John Hick’s Evil and Indian thought from beginning to end, from its conception the God of Love, 2d ed. (London, 1977), S. Paul Schilling’s of the problem of suffering to that problem’s resolution. God and Human Anguish (Nashville, 1977), and David Ray Within this intellectual context, theodicy in its classic sense Griffin’s God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Philadel- finds little room for development. phia, 1976). Some of the most important classic discussions of this problem in- CONCLUSION. Along with the corrosive effect of modern sci- clude Augustine’s treatment of the issue in his Confessions, entific knowledge, the problem of innocent suffering poses bk. 7, chaps. 3–5 and 12–16, in his Enchridion, chaps. 3–5, one of the greatest challenges to ethical monotheism in our and in The City of God, bk. 11, chaps. 16–18, and bk. 12, day. In the wake of the mass suffering of this epoch, some chaps. 1–9. Thomas Aquinas has a very similar discussion in have rejected such monotheism, agreeing with the remark by his Summa theologiae, first part, questions 47–49, as does Stendahl that “the only excuse for God is that he does not John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk. 1, exist.” Others have been drawn to various dissolutions of the chaps. 1–5 and 14–18, bk. 2, chaps. 1–5, and bk. 3, chaps. theodicy problem, ranging from the Eastern stress on karman 21–25. The great medieval Jewish philosopher Mosheh ben Maimon (Maimonides) also advances a theodicy in his Guide to an extreme that abandons the insistence on God’s of the Perplexed, pt. 3, chaps. 11 and 12, which relies heavily justice. on the connection between wrongdoing and suffering. Before rejecting ethical monotheism or the theodicies it Modern philosophical discussion of theodicy has its start with has stimulated, however, it is worth keeping in mind that Leibniz’s Essais de théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de both spring from a profound moral intentionality. Ethical l’homme, et l’origine du mal (1710), translated by E. M. Hug- monotheism expresses the conviction that a supreme power gard as Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil (London, 1952). On the other guides reality and that this power is characterized by righ- side, penetrating criticisms of and theodicy are of- teousness and love. Theodicy is the effort to sustain this con- fered by in his Dialogues Concerning Natural viction in the face of innocent suffering. Theodicy, therefore, Religion (1779) and by in his Three Essays is often less an effort to provide an account of the immediate on Religion (1874). facts of experience than an expression of hope and confi- In this century, debate in this area has been especially vigorous. dence that despite worldly reverses or human resistance, Important theological discussions include Nels Ferré’s Evil goodness and righteousness will triumph. Theodicy may not and the Christian Faith (New York, 1947), Austin Farrer’s violate the requirements of logic, nor may it ignore the expe- Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited (Garden City, N. Y., 1961), rienced reality of suffering. Theodicy’s deepest impulse, and the works by Hick, Schilling, and Griffin mentioned however, is not to report the bitter facts of life but to over- above. A critique of these and other efforts at theodicy is of- come and transform them. fered by Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare in their Evil and the Concept of God (Springfield, Ill., 1968). This essentially moral motivation should be kept in Influential criticisms of theism and the free-will theodicy have mind as we evaluate theodicies and their alternatives. Various been advanced by Antony Flew in his essays “Theology and dissolutions of the theodicy problem, from denials of God’s Falsification” and “Divine Omnipotence and Human Free- power or justice to denials of the reality of suffering, may dom,” in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, edited by An- seem intellectually satisfying, but they may have moral impli- tony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre (London, 1955), and by cations we hesitate to accept. Theodicies, too, are subject to J. L. Mackie in his article “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind, a moral test. If some older theodicies, such as reliance on the n. s. 64 (1955): 200–212. This last essay is reprinted along with rejoinders by Nelson Pike and Ninian Smart in God and harsh idea of original sin, are no longer widely held, this may Evil (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1964), edited by Pike. Re- reflect their moral inadequacy. Conversely, theodicies that sponding to these discussions, Alvin Plantinga provides a still attract attention are those that draw upon and deepen powerful defense of theodicy in general and of the free-will our moral self-understanding. The idea that God is commit- theodicy in particular in his God and Other Minds (Ithaca, ted to the perilous enterprise of creating free, mature human N. Y., 1967), chaps. 5 and 6, and in his God, Freedom and beings exemplifies this approach. This theodicy draws on Evil (London, 1975).

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA 9121

The and the issue of theodicy has also had an im- Rowe, William, ed. God and the Problem of Evil. Blackwell Read- portant place in fictional writing during the modern period. ings in Philosophy. Malden, Mass., 2002. Particularly noteworthy are Fedor Dostoevskii’s The Brothers Sands, Kathleen. Escape from Paradise: Evil and Tragedy in Femi- Karamazov, translated by David Magarshack (London, nist Theology. New York, 1998. 1964), esp. bk. 5, chap. 4; ’s The Plague, trans- lated by Stuart Gilbert (New York, 1948); and Elie Wiesel’s Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Power of Evil. New York, Night, translated by Stella Rodway (London, 1960). 1998. A sign of how much the problem of theodicy is a Western concern RONALD M. GREEN (1987) is that no comparable body of literature exists on the theodi- Revised Bibliography cy problem in Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. Nevertheless, there are some discussions worth noting. Max Weber’s treat- ment of theodicy in his Religionssoziologie (Tübingen, 1922) THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (350–428), is a pioneering effort to look at the problem of suffering and Christian biblical exegete and theologian. Theodore was theodicy in a comparative context. This essay is translated as born in Antioch about the same time as John Chrysostom, “Theodicy, Salvation, and Rebirth” in Weber’s Sociology of Religion, translated by Ephraim Fischoff (Boston, 1963). who became his friend and fellow student. Since Theodore Weber’s view is critically examined and developed by Ga- belonged to the noble class, he attended courses given by the nanath Obeyesekere in his article “Theodicy, Sin, and Salva- most renowned professor of rhetoric at that time, Libanius. tion in a Sociology of Buddhism,” in Dialectic in Practical He was later admitted to the Asketerion, the famous school Religion, edited by E. R. Leach (Cambridge, 1968). near Antioch, of Diodore (later bishop of Tarsus) and A good survey of the problem of suffering in diverse religious tra- Karterios. Even after his ordination as bishop of Mopsuestia, ditions (and in Marxism) is provided by John Bowker’s Prob- in Cilicia, he occasionally lectured at the school, where his lems of Suffering in Religions of the World (Cambridge, 1970). reputation as a teacher attracted such distinguished pupils as Both Arthur L. Herman’s The Problem of Evil and Indian Rufinus, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Nestorius. His work in Thought (Delhi, 1976) and Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty’s uprooting the remnants of in his province was The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology (Berkeley, 1976) con- very successful. tain useful information on the diversity of responses to suf- fering in Indian religious traditions. Theodore wrote widely on various subjects, but only a Unfortunately, there is less explicit discussion of this issue in Is- part of his literary production has been preserved. A pioneer lamic writings or in writings about Islam, and what sources in biblical , he basically followed the hermeneutic do exist are largely in Arabic. The best available review of this principles of his teacher Diodore, although he diverged from issue is the doctoral dissertation of Eric Lynn Ormsby, An them in some important points. He showed greater confi- Islamic Version of Theodicy: The Dispute over Al-Ghaza¯l¯ı’s dence in his personal understanding than in the authority of “Best of All Possible Worlds” (Princeton University, 1981). traditional hermeneutics, with the result that he rejected the Brief mentions of this problem may also be found in Ken- canonicity of many books of scripture. neth Cragg’s The House of Islam, 2d ed. (Encino, Calif., 1975) and W. Montgomery Watt’s What Is Islam (London, Only four of his commentaries have been preserved: On 1968). Watt’s Free Will and Predestination in Early Islam the Twelve Prophets, parts of On the Psalms, On John, and On (London, 1948) is an influential discussion of the determin- the Epistles of Paul. In all of these he uses critical, philological, istic themes that have tended to minimize the presence of and historical methods and rejects the Alexandrian method theodicy in this tradition. On the other side of the issue, Jane of allegorical interpretation. Also of great importance are his I. Smith and Yvonne Haddad’s The Islamic Understanding of Catechetical Homilies, which were discovered in a Syriac Death and Resurrection (Albany, N. Y., 1981) provides a use- translation. ful review of the themes of accountability and recompense that form an implicit theodicy in this tradition. As an indefatigable combatant against the heresies of his time, Theodore’s attention was particularly directed toward New Sources Adams, Marilyn McCord. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of Apollinaris of Laodicea. Theodore’s dogmatic fragments that God. Ithaca, N.Y., 1999. have been preserved, especially On the Incarnation, are direct- ed against him. Theodore’s extreme position on the two na- Adams, Marilyn McCord, and Robert Merihew Adams. The Prob- tures of Christ is largely a response to Apollinaris’s teaching lem of Evil. New York, 1990. about the mutilation of Christ’s human nature. Following Alford, C. Fred. What Evil Means to Us. Ithaca, N.Y., 1997. the Antiochene line of thought, which combined the spiritu- Basinger, David. “The Problem with the ‘Problem of Evil.’” Reli- al element with the material in such a way that they are not gious Studies 30 (1994): 89–97. confused, Theodore admitted that the two natures of Christ Boyd, Gregory. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. are perfect and also remain two. His only concession on this Downers Grove, Ill., 1997. subject was to conceive a single person only in reference to Leaman, Oliver. Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy. New the union of the two natures; in this case the being of the York, 1995. person is not in , but in God’s will, and the union is Pinn, Anthony. Why Lord? Suffering and Evil in Black Theology. not natural but moral. Accordingly, Mary, the mother of 1995; rpt. New York, 1999. Christ, is only nominally theotokos, mother of God.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION