“I still believe in the providence of God.” These are words that have often been uttered by Christians when facing one of the exigencies of life or death. What is meant by the term “providence” when applied to God, and what difference does it make if one believes that God acts in respect to his providence?
I. THE MEANING, SCOPE, AND USEFULNESS OF THE TERM “PROVIDENCE”#
A. ETYMOLOGY#
The word “providence” is derived from the Latin verb which means “to see at a distance” and hence “to prepare for, to take precautions about.”
“Providence” is associated with the English word “provide” and connotes “seeing ahead.”
Christian theologians have used the term to signify God’s working out or effecting his purpose despite hindrances in the world that he has created. Another term sometimes associated with providence is “preservation,” which has been used by Christian theologians to signify God’s sustenance or maintenance of that he has created.
B. DEFINITIONS, SCOPE, AND RELATIONSHIPS#
1. Some theologians, especially Baptist theologians, have defined and treated “providence” and “preservation” as distinctly separate terms and subjects.
A.H. Strong employed the following definitions:
Providence is that continuous agency of God by which He makes all the events of the physical and moral universe fulfill the original design with which He created it.
Preservation is that continuous agency of God by which He maintains in existence the things that He has created
Similarly, E.Y. Mullins defines these terms:
By the providence of God we mean His control or direction of the universe toward the end which He has chosen.
Preversation is God’s action in sustaining the universe He has made.
W.T. Conner treated preservation as a part of the doctrine of God and providence under the doctrine of the Christian life, utilizing the following definitions:
By providence we mean that God is working out a purpose in the life of man.
The preservation of the universe… is one of the specific functions of God in relation to the world… [for the] world could no more continue of its own accord than it could bring itself into existence at first.
Dale Moody differentiated “the preversation of creation” and “the purpose of creation (providence)”, and Henry C. Thiessen and William W. Stevens made the same basic distinction.
There seem to be no essential reasons, however, based on the Baptist understanding of the Christian gospel, why such a distinction must be made by Baptist theologians. Furthermore, a Methodist (Henry C. Sheldon) and a Mennonite (John C. Wenger) theologian had employed the same distinction.
2. Other theologians have defined and treated “providence” without so much emphasis on divine preservation of the world of nature
According to Georgia Elma Harkness, a Methodist theologian:
The providence of God means the goodness of God and His guiding, sustaining care. Belief in providence in the most general sense implies the goodness as well as the power of God in the creation, ordering, and maintaining of His world, embracing the entire world of physical nature, biological life, and human persons. However, it is in the destinies of human individuals that belief in providence centers… In a word, to believe in divine providence is to believe that God sees the way before us and looks after us as we seek to walk in it.
3. Other theologians have defined the providence of God so as to make God’s preservations of the universe an aspect of providence.
John Calvin declared that the Creator:
is also everlasting Governor and Preserver - not only in that he drives the celestial frame as well as its several parts by a universal motion, but also in that he sustains, nourishes, and cares for everything He has made, even to the least sparrow.
According to Charles Hodge, “Providence… includes preservation and government”.
John Leadley Dagg (1794-1884) and James Petigru Boyce (1827-88), both Southern Baptist theologians, included preservation under providence.
John Miley (1813-95), a Methodist, William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820-94), a Presbyterian, Russell R. Byrum, the Church of God theologian, and H. Orton Wiley of the Church of Nazarene all followed the same pattern.
Emil Brunner defined providence so as to include both preservation and government. Accordingly, providence deals with “the relation between God and Nature, between the divine action and the course of History, between divine and human action, between human freedom and divine over-ruling, between events which are determined by human aims, and those controlled by the Divine Purpose”.
G.C. Berkouwer treated the providence of God in considerable detail under three rubics: sustenance, government, and concurrence (or cooperation).
C. USEFULNESS#
Whether the term “providence” can be said to be useful or at least tenable depends mainly upon one’s response to the question as to whether the concept of providence itself is tenable.
During the nineteenth century in Western thought there tended to be a general or widespread acceptance of a providential and benevolent order of things. The German philosopher G. W. Leibnitz had taken the position that this is the best of all possible worlds. The concept of evolution was being applied to history, and there was a commonly accepted belief in progress. Divine providence seemed to fit into that scheme of things.
But in the twentieth century, as G. C. Berkouwer has pointed out, in the face of two great world wars, the Holocaust, atomic and hydrogen bombs, and the like, grave doubts arose as to divine providence even as secularization increased. These doubts have led some to despair, pessimism, and even nihilism. They have led others to adopt substitutes for divine providence, notably forms of the neo-occult such as Spiritism, astrology, and parapsychology.
The task of formulating the Christian doctrine of providence may indeed be a more sobering and difficult task today than in the days of our spiritual forebears, but it is no less important.
With the meaning of the term “providence” somewhat clarified, it is now expedient to proceed with the explication of the doctrine under three distinct divisions: providence as sustenance (God and nature); providence and sovereignty (God and history); and providence and theodicy (God and suffering).
II. PROVIDENCE AS SUSTENANCE (GOD AND NATURE)#
A. BIBLICAL TEACHINGS#
1. Old Testament
In addition to these texts that speak of divine creation the Old Testament contains specific passages in which the theme of Yahweh’s sustenance of the natural or physical order is set forth.
For the prophet, Amos sustenance is expressed in terms of “the rising and falling of the Nile River” (9:5-6)
The 104th Psalm is a long hymn to the preserving power of God, who keeps alive all the creatures of the deep, both small and great.
The Lord preserves “both man and beast” (Ps. 36:6), supplies rain (Ps. 68:8-9; 147:8-9) and snow (Ps. 147:16-17), and provides food for beasts and fowl (Ps. 147:9)
In the Israelite confession of sins in Ezra’s time, Yahweh was acknowledged not only as Creator but also as the one who “preserve” or “gives life” to all that has been created (Neh. 9:6)
2. New Testament
In the teaching of Jesus, one finds the declaration that the heavenly Father “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45).
His disciples were not to pray as the Gentiles did “for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him” (Matt. 6:8)
They were not to be “anxious”, for “the birds of the air, the lilies of the field, and the grass of the field” are cared for by the heavenly Father, who knows all human needs, whose kingdom is first of all to be sought, and who will provide “all these things” as well (Matt. 6:25-34)
No sparrow “will fall to the ground apart from the will” of the heavenly Father, and even human hairs are numbered (Matt. 10:29-30)
Paul himself wrote of the all-wise God, “For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36), and referred to him as the one “who gives life to all things” (1. Tim. 6:13)
In Christ, “all things hold together” (Col. 1:17)
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Son of God is said to be “sustaining all things by His powerful word” (1:3b)
B. MEANING#
Sustenance, or preservation, is distinct from creation, though dependent on creation. Otto Weber has argued for the distinction between creation and preservation by asserting that the latter “by no means takes place ‘out of nothingness,’ but conserves created existence as something already extant and active and thus presupposes it.”
Sustenance is “a positive agency” of God, not mere refraining from destruction. As such it is a free activity of God which is not “ontologically necessary.” John Calvin was quite sure that God is no “idle” God.
Sustenance involves divine “concurrence” with secondary causes. God is thus immanent in the operation of natural phenomena accord- ing to natural law, though never so immanent as to preclude miracle. The Christian doctrine of sustenance, therefore, avoids the extremes and therefore the errors of both deism and pantheism.
How sustenance is related to earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other such natural occurrences can be referred to IV below.
C. CONTRARY VIEWS#
1. Deism
Deism, especially in its later form, denied divine sustenance by positing the absenteeism of the Creator from the created order and holding that the universe operates as a “self-sustained mechanism”. Various naturalistic philosophies in the twentieth century have agreed with the diestic view of the universe without acknowledging a Creator.
2. Continuous Creation
Continuous creation theory denies God’s sustenance of all things by substituting continuous creation for sustenance. Herman Bavinck used the term “continuouse creation” (creatio continua) in a favorable sense so as to emphasize that sustenance is as great and important a work as creationg.
Otto Weber distinguished between “continued creation” (creatio continuata), of which he found dependent and ontological sub-types, and “continuing creation” (creatio continua) but rejected both and advocated instead “the concept of ’the Creator continuing His own work’ (creator opus suum continuans)”.
Continuous creation theory can be incorporated into pantheistic and process philosophies.
III. PROVIDENCE AS SOVEREIGNTY (GOD AND HISTORY)#
Most all Christian theologians acknowledge that God’s sovereign guidance of human history is a topic that belongs under the providence of God. Secularistic philosophies deny that there is any such thing as providential sovereignty.
Is belief in divine providence basic to all religions, or is it peculiar to Christianity? Christian theologians have not agreed in answering this question. It is difficult to see how in non theistic and polytheistic religions the working out of divine purpose could be meaningfully held; with mystical religions the concept would be pantheistic; with Judaism and Islam, “the general concept of providence is basic to all forms of religion” is more persuasive.
By divine sovereign guidance of human history we mean that the one Triune God is exercising a caring rulership over both the broad sweep and the particulars of human affairs and destiny even in the face of human resistance to that rule and will bring that rulership to fulfillment in the consummated kingdom of God.
A. BIBLICAL PASSAGES AND CONCEPTS#
It seems better to treat the materials from both testaments in relation to the major themes than to deal with the teachings of each testament separately.
1. God’s Overall Direction of History
a. Universal Divine Rulership
The Old Testament presents Yahweh as the king oflsrael (Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; 1 Sam. 12:12b), and even Solomon was said “to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel” (l Chr. 28:5, NIV; see also 1 Chr. 29:23; 2 Chr. 9:8; 13:8).
But in the Psalms, the hymnbook of Israel, Yahweh’s kingship is repeatedly affirmed as universal (Ps. 103:19). He rules over all the earth (Ps. 47:2, 7; 97:9), over the kings of the earth (Ps. 47:9; 97:1, 5), and over the nations (Ps. 96:10; 99:1-2). He foils the plans and purposes of peoples and nations (Ps. 33:10-11), and his rulership is eternal (Ps. 66:7; 93:2; 146:10). This universal kingship does not rule out Israel’s being chosen by Yahweh (Ps. 47:3-4).
Yahweh frustrated Pharoah and resisted Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem but employed Cyrus as his seivant. The numerous pronouncements of divine judgment on Israel’s neighbors made through the prophets constitute further confirmation of this universal rulership.
b. Divine Action in History Centered in Jesus Christ
Christians interpret the Old Testament promises concerning the advent of the Son of David-the Son of Man-the Anointed One as having been fulfilled in the advent, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. For Christians the due to the meaning of history is to be found in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4a, RSV), and “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John l:14a).
Oscar Cullmann called “the Christ-deed” the “mid-point” of salvation history.41 According to Paul, God pmposes, under the headship of Christ, “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together” (Eph. 1:10b, NIV). Theologians of the salvation-history school and Wolfhart Pannenberg have differed as to how the unique happenings involving Jesus ought to be related to the general history of humankind, but there is no disagreement concerning Jesus as the focal point of all history.
God is no deistic absentee Creator missing from the world of nature; neither is he on vacation from the drama of human history. Hinduism and Buddhism have no comparable understanding of God’s active role in history, and Judaism and Islam have rejected him who is history’s clue and hope.
c. History’s Goal or End
God works not only in history but toward the fulfillment history, the full realization of His kingly rule and manifestation of His glory. Providence means the attainment of God’s telos.
Indeed “to him [God] are all things” (Rom. 11:36).
He is “Omega” as well as “Alpha” (Rev. 1:17c)
The Son will deliver the kingly rule to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28)
Despite the power of evil both human and suprahuman (Eph. 6:12), God will be victorious (1 Cor. 15:57)
The mention of sin suggests that providence must address and deal realistically with sin if God’s kingly rule over history is to be finalized.
2. God’s Agency in Reference to Human Sin
Does not the stubborn fact of human sin and its persistence constitute a stumbling block across the path of God’s providential design? Can we really believe both in the reality of sin and the outworkings of divine providence? These are often the sincere questions of earnest people, and they do call for answers.
A.H. Strong’s delineation of this topic still can serve as a useful framework for its presentation. According to Strong, God’s providence is related in four ways to the occurrence of human sin.
- First, it can be preventive.
God may prevent some sin that would otherwise be committed. Yahweh’s word to King Abimelech through a dream was: “You have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me… " (Gen. 20:6, RSV). The psalmist prayed: “Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me” (19:13, NIV). This preventive aspect is subsumed by Dutch Reformed theologians under the doctrine of"common grace.”
- Second, God’s providence may be permissive respecting sin.
He may allow human beings to cherish and continue in their sin. “Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone” (Hos. 4: 17, NIV). Concerning Israel Yahweh declared: “So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices” (Ps. 81:12). Surveying the Gentile world, Paul asserted that “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity” and “gave them over to a depraved mind” (Rom. 1:24a).
- Third, God’s providence vis-a-vis human sin may be directive.
He may direct “the evil acts of men to ends unforeseen and unintended by the agents.” Joseph’s words to his brothers constitute a clear example: “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Gen. 50:20, RSV). Assyria was said to be the “rod” of Yahweh’s “anger” and “the club” of his “wrath” (Isa. 10:5, NIV). According to Peter and John, when Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles, and Jews gathered for the crucifixion of Jesus, they did what God’s “power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (Acts 4:28, NIV).
- Fourth, God in his providence as it affects sin may be limitational.
He may set the bounds or limits to be reached by sin and its effects. Israelites claimed that by Yahweh’s help the attack of their enemies had been blunted (Ps.124:1-5), and according to Paul God will not allow Christians to be tempted beyond their capacity to bear it and will even “provide the way of escape” (1 Cor. 10:13, RSV).Jesus drove out demons by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:28), the eschatological “man of lawlessness” is being restrained (2 Thess. 2:3, 6-7), and Satan’s binding is “for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:2).
Following our treatments of providence in relation to history and to sin, it is fitting to ask how the Christian doctrine of providence is related, if at all, to the philosophical issue of determinism and free will. Otto Weber has called determinism “the experience of conditionedness” and indeterminism “the experience of personhood or of shouldness.” Because of the influence of the Stoic concept of fate and of Aristotle’s concept of the First Cause, Christian theology has tended to subject God to determinism, with the result that God came to be viewed as the “unfree” “epitome” of “inviolable law.” For this reason Weber rejected the concept of divine “omnicausality,” a form of omnipotence.
Likewise, because of the influence of Stoic fatalism and because of forms of interpretation of the Christian doctrines of predestination and foreordination, Christian theology has tended to subject human beings to determinism, with the result that the responsible human decision-making as to sinning/not sinning and obedience/ disobedience which is so evident in the Bible is obscured or denied. Omnicausality is to be rejected for human considerations as well as divine. For Paul “it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil. 2:13, NIV).
3. God’s Care of All His Creation, Especially His Redeemed People
In the letters of Paul and Peter assurances are given as to God’s sufficient care for his redeemed people. Veritably God’s love is expressed not only as grace in the forgiveness of sins but also as providential care.
God’s care is an antidote to anxiety (1 Pet. 5:7), for believers are to have a prayerful, nonanxious trust in the garrisoning God (Phil. 4:6-7), whose supply of needs is indeed sufficient (Phil. 4:19). For the called ones God is working all things unto the good of Christlikeness (Rom. 8:28-29).
This is “special” providence and not merely “general” providence. God’s redeemed are not his pampered favorites to the neglect of the rest of humankind but are under his fatherly care, even when this involves the sufferings and ills of life, that they may become like Jesus Christ, the image of God. According to Elgin Frank Tupper (1941-), “[t]he very core of the definition of providence is the provision of God for us in the joys and sorrows of life,” a provision that necessarily includes resurrection.
B. CONTRARY VIEWS#
That divine providence is not widely accepted outside Christian circles may be seen through a brief examination of five major alternative or contrary views. These views constitute objections to the doctrine of providence as sovereignty or government, although some of them also object to providence as sustenance.
1. Mechanism
According to a strict maechanistic view of the world, not only the inorganic realm but also the organic and the human and even the historical realms are thought to be governed by a necessity inherent in the most elementary forces of nature. It may be seen as “pancausalism”. Emil Brunner described this view as “determinism from below”.
Is mechanism defensible? Even its adherents do not follow its implications, for they expect their fellow men to treat them ethically. This view “forcibly imposes an artificial theory of unity upon the graduated qualitative variety ofreality.” While it may be applicable in physics and astronomy, it cannot be properly applied to the organic and human levels.
The organic is inexplicable merely in terms of the inorganic or mechanistic.
The human is inexplicable merely in terms of the organic.
The divine is inexplicable merely in terms of the human.
Furthermore, science is the product of human discoveries under the providence of God, and its discoveries and inventions show that mind is superior to things. Christians affirm that the universe is governed by God according to natural law, not by impersonal force or sheer necessity. Nature’s regularities are seen as evidence of God’s faithfulness and benevolence.
2. Nontheistic Humanism
Adherents of this view would join with the Christian view in objecting to a purely mechanistic interpretation of reality but are unwilling to rise above the level of human causality. The latter is taken to be adequate for explaining all reality.
Such an attitude or philosophy seeks to exalt human beings by denying to God his rightful place. Although catastrophic world events in the twentieth century have served to shake the confidence of many in such humanism, there are still many who espouse its cause. It does not, however, truly exalt humans, for it only makes them subject to the destructive forces resulting from evil - human and suprahuman - from the evil which the humanist refuses to acknowledge.
3. Fatalism
This view holds that the world order, including human beings, is governed by impersonal fate or world-reason. The ancient Stoics set forth the idea of pronoia.
Instead of a personal God working out His purpose in nature and history, fatalism poses an impersonal, deterministic, nonteleological, and very general force governing all of nature and history. The Stoics invented “a necessity out of the permanent causal nexus (perpetuus nexus causarum) and a kind of immanent series which is supposed to be included in Nature”. There are parallels between ancient Stoicism and modern astrology.
Emil Brunner has labeled fatalism “determinism from above”. Ulrich Zwingli as a Christian theologian seemingly went too far toward embracing fatalism as he interpreted providence. Fatalism is not to be identified with providence; it offers no mercy or comfort to human beings faced with pain, disappointment, guilt, or death.
4. Projectionism
This view counters the Christian doctrine of providence by claiming that providence as a belief is merely the projection of human whishes and desires for fatherly concern and support and has no basis in reality beyond such longings and desires. Providence, for projectionists, is a grand religious delusion. Projectionism has its roots in the thought of Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud.
Because belief in providence cannot be tested scientifically and can be objected to philosophically, it is vulnerable to the view of projectionism. Also, the same projectionist objection can be and has been laid against the existence of God. Faith in God’s providence today is based on God’s rulership and faithfulness in the past, and hence special or historical revelation is crucial to overturning the projectionist objection. If Jesus went to his cross out of a sense of obedience to the purpose of God, was not crucifixion too great a price to pay for a projectionist illusion?
5. General Providence
This view allows for God’s direction over the major movements of human history but denies that divine providence is individual, particular, or special. God may indeed have been at work at the battles of Tours, Waterloo, and Dunkirk, but providence is hardly more. It applies only to nations and groups.
Jesus’ various utterances about the Father’s care are amazingly and convincingly particular; they seem to demand special providence.
IV. PROVIDENCE AS THEODICY (GOD AND SUFFERING)#
The term “theodicy” seems to have been coined by G. W. Leibnitz in 1710. It means the justification of God, especially in reference to pain or suffering, what some would call “natural evil.” Theodicy deals with the age-old problem of evil, which may be stated concisely as follows: Can God be concurrently both good and almighty in view of the existence of natural evil?
Christian philosophers and theologians have differentiated “moral evil” and “natural evil.” Accordingly, “moral evil” is “that which man does,” and “natural evil” is “that which man endures.” For clarification one would need to add that “moral evil” is that evil which has been done for which the human doer is religiously and morally responsible and that the recipient of “natural evil” has for it no comparable direct responsibility. In addition the “moral evil” committed by some human beings can be for other humans “natural evil,” as a bomb planted on a commercial airliner by a terrorist that results in massive loss of life would readily illustrate.
What does the Bible have to say about suffering or “natural evil”? Let us now locate and examine four strands of emphasis in the Old Testament and five such strands in the New Testament.
A. BIBLICAL TEACHINGS#
1. Old Testament
a. Toil and Pain as the Consequence of the Advent of Human Sin
Gen. 3: 16-19 alludes to the intensification of pain in childbirth and woman’s submission to her husband and to man’s having to engage in “painful toil” (v. 17b, NIV) through the “sweat” of his “brow” on an infested earth in order to obtain needed food. A traditional interpretation of the text is that the pain and toil (natural evil) were the retributive or punitive result of the sin of Adam and Eve (moral evil) and that the natural evil began only after the commission of moral evil. Indeed the use of the word “because” in v. 17 (see also a similar use in v. 14) seems to indicate a cause-effect relationship between sin and suffering.
Some Christians have asked whether we should understand this text to mean that there was no suffering whatever or no potential for suffering prior to the commission of human sin. Put in vivid terms the question is: If Adam before sinning had fallen down a steep cliff, would he have injured himself? W. T. Conner contended that “there is no clear teaching anywhere in the Bible to the effect that all suffering, animal death, and all natural evil, are the consequences of man’s sin,” though some have inferred such from the text under consideration and from Rom. 8:19-22 and 2 Pet 3:13. Conner clearly acknowledged that “specific forms of suffering are at times the direct or indirect result of man’s sin” and that “this suffering is of the nature of a penalty for man’s sin.”
b. Sufferings of the Righteous amid the Prosperity of the Wicked
Certain of the Psalms (esp. 10, 13, 37, 73, and 109) constrast the prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings and troubles of the righteous. The wicked are often seen as the enemies of the righteous, and frequently the psalmists calls upon Yahweh to vindacate the righteous.
Modern interpreters may be inclined to assert that the preoccupation of the Israelites with an inheritedland and their looking upon material prosperity as an indication of spiritual favor with God intensified the problem and the distress of the righteous. Even so, the problem is modern as well as ancient, for in modern societies the unjust, the dishonest, and the unscrupulous often accumulate more material possessions than the honest and the devout.
c. Suffering and Vindication of an Innocent Man
The book of Job presents in classic form the problem of the sufferings of a man innocent of deeds commensurate with such suffering and of his ultimate vindication before his accursers and of his trust in God.
d. Vicarious Suffering of the Servant of Yahweh
The fourth of the Servant Songs of Isa. 40-55 (52:13-53:12) describes the vicarious suffering of the Servant of Yahweh and his exaltation.
2. New Testament
a. Suffering of the Righteous Jesus for Unrighteous Humankind
A theme central to the message of the New Testament in that Jesus, being righteous, suffered, especially in his crucifixion and death, for the sins of other human beings, who are unrighteous (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18a). It’s to be seen, even as with the suffering of the Servant of Yahweh, as pointing to a unique, once-for-all type of suffering.
b. Suffering as the Persecution of Jesus’ Disciples
Some suffering endured by Jesus’ disciples was that inflicted by their persecutors, even as Jesus himself had warned (see Matt. 5:10-11).
Paul’s words about suffering and persecution were autobiographical (see 2 Cor. 4:8-10). The same apostle rejoiced in his sufferings in behalf of Colossian Christians, declaring that he was completing “what still remains” of “Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church” (1:24, NIV).
Persecution of Christians is a recurring theme in the First Epistle of Peter, where it is said to bring blessedness (3:14a, 4:14) and to be connected with the word of “the devil” (5:8-10).
c. Suffering Not Always the Direct Consequence of Specific Sin
In referring to certain Galileans who had been put to death by Pontius Pilate, Jesus denied that they were “worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus” (Luke 13:2). Jesus made the same kind of statement about the eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam had fallen, causing their death (Luke 13:4).
Even more explicit were his words about the man blind from birth who had been healed by Jesus at the pool of Siloam: “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him” (John 9:3).
d. Suffering for the Sake of Testing/Discipline
Paul taught that suffering, presumably that by Christians, “produces endurance” (Rom. 5:3-4a) or “perseverance” (NIV) and that “endurance” or “perseverance” produces character. He interpreted his own “thorn in flesh” as having been the occasion through which he had learned the sufficiency of God’s grace and Christ’s power as manifested in his own weakness (2 Cor. 12:7-9).
The author of the Epislte to the Hebrews, following his exhortation about running the race of the Christian life (12:1-3), quoted Prov. 3:11-12. The author then interpreted and applied this text.
Suffering is a part of filial disicpline (v. 7), and the absence of suffering suggests illegitimate sonship (v. 8). Discipline is normal for earthly fathers (v. 9), but the heavenly Father has an even higher purpose, namely, “our good” (v. 10). Discipline, finally, “produces a harvest of righteousness and peace” (v. 11)
e. Suffering and the Goal of Christlikeness
There is a teleological aspect to the New Testament teaching about suffering. This is specifically taught in Paul’s often-quoted Rom. 8:28-29. This assurance is not given to all humankind but to the “called according to His purpose”. The “good” is that “the called” should become like unto Jesus Christ. Hence suffering can be seen as designed to aid in the attainment of that goal.
B. ALTERNATIVE “SOLUTIONS”#
1. Those Which Deny or Are Silent about the Goodness and Love of God
a. Buddhism
According to Buddhism, suffering grows out of the very nature of existence nad attachment to existence. The remedy for suffering is the destruction of desire. To overcome suffering, therefore, the desire to exist must be eradicated.
Buddhism offers the way or path for the attainment of this goal. There is nothing in Buddhism comparable to the suffering love of Jesus Christ. Divine love and goodness play no role in the Buddhist “solution” to suffering.
b. Stoicism
Stoics called on human beings to face natural evil by yielding to the inevitable of blind impersonal fate. Such yielding is to be marked by an impassionate or unemotional submission and endurance. No personal God and certainly no God of suffering love is involved in the Stoic “answer”.
c. Naturalism
According to this view, pain is a biochemical indication that something is wrong in the human organism. It functions aas a danger signal. Suffering is thus something quite natural and is to be borne with courage. Presumably the sufferer is not to raise questions about the why of suffering. Naturalism does not address the pain which human beings inflict upon other human beings. In itself naturalism has no word about the goodness and love of God.
2. Those Which Deny the Almighty Power of God
a. Moral Dualism
Moral dualism affirms two uncreated and eternal Beings, the one good and the other evil. The evil God is the author or at least the controller of natural evil. Not all dualisms give a clear answer as to whether the good God will ultimately triumph. Dualism seems not to provide any assurance of personal victory over or through suffering.
b. Philosophy of Nonbeing
According to this view, moral and natural evil may be traced to the Ungrund, or “Diving Nothing”, or Nonbeing. The Russian Orthodox philosopher Nicolai Berdyaev (1874-1948), set forth this view.
Both God and freedom were born out of the Ungrund; hence God is not responsible for the freedom of angels/men, which gave rise to moral evil. Natural evil is chiefly the result of moral evil. It seems that this “solutions” assumes that God is impotent in the face of freeddom-derived moral evil, and hence it must be traced to another source.
c. Theology of a Finite God
This view, espoused by the American philosopher, Edgar S. Brightman, holds that there is in the very being of God an extrarational and extravolitional aspect or “surd” or “the Given”. This “surd” God himself cannot control, therefore, is an obstacle to God’s realization of His purpose. God is limited by an uncontrollable something within His own being, and hence God is finite, not infinite.
3. That Which Denies the Reality or Seriousness of Natural Evil While Holding to the Goodness of God
Christian Science, or the teachings of Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, being based on a pantheistic and idealistic philosophy, denies the reality of natural evil (suffering, illness, death) as well as the reality of moral evil (sin) and the reality of matter. The movement has discouraged the use of medical doctors, and its leaders conduct graveside burial services for those who, according to the official teaching, have not died. During her lifetime, Mrs. Eddy found it necessary to posit “Malicious Animal Magnetism” to explain the activities of her opponents, even though this postulate as contradictory to her own teachings.
C. THE CHRISTIAN “SOLUTION”#
1. Various Functions of Suffering
As the examination of biblical texts has suggested, the Bible ascribes to suffering various functions, and Christian theology has elaborated on these.
a. Suffering can be retributive or punitive, either for one’s own sins or, indirectly, for the sins of others (Gen. 3:3; Deut. 30:15; 2 Cor. 5:10)
b. Suffering can be disciplinary as a legitimate aspect of sonship to God (Prov. 3:11-12; Heb. 12:5-11)
c. Suffering can be probationary, or a form of testing (Isa. 48:10; Job 2:3,6,9-10)
d. Suffering can be revelational in that God’s nature and purpose can be made manifest through suffering (Jeremiah, Hosea, the exemplary dimension in Jesus’ suffering)
e. Suffering can be vicarious or substitutionary in that Jesus’ death was in behalf of and instead of others.
f. Suffering can be testimonial in that Christians by dying for or suffering greatly for their faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ are thereby witnesses for Christ, as the recent history of Christianity in the People’s Republic of China and elsewhere clearly shows.
g. Suffering can be eschatological, or a characteristic of the end times (Matt. 24:8)
2. Suffering Ordained and Suffering Permitted
Christian teaching normally maintains a distinction between that which God ordains and that which God permits. This distinction is needed in view of the freedom of created human beings to choose contrary to God’s purpose, or the highest human good. Not all suffering permitted by God is necessary ordained by God.
3. Suffering without Karma
Christian belief has no place for a doctrine of karma, built on strict distributive justice.
4. Limtis to the Phenomenon of Healing
Most contemporary Christians do not accept the teaching found among some Pentecostals and Neo-Pentecostals, namely, that all pain, disease, bodily infirmity, and suffering can be eliminated by claiming the healing promised in the atoning or saving work of Christ (Isa. 53:5d) and/or by the exercise of full and genuine faith. Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” seems to be biblical evidence against this view.
5. Solvitur patiendo through Christ
The Christian “solution” to suffering is not so much an intellectual rationale for suffering as it is the experience of suffering itself in the grace and power of Jesus Christ. Henry Wheeler Robinson (1872-1945) rightly claimed solvitur patiendo (it is solved through suffering).
SUMMARY#
To sum up, providence, as God’s foreseeing and directing all things to His intended end, involves sustenance (God and nature), sovereignty (God and history), and theodicy (God and suffering).