The second post I read was much worse.

It stated that during the creative process of a designer, it is God who creates; we are just inspired by God to act as a result.  This argument is based on the observation that Jesus believed that the author of Genesis 2:24 (that a man should leave his parents and become one flesh with his wife) was Moses (Luke 24:44), and this statement was Moses’, (not a direct quote from God).  Because Jesus attributed this idea to God, this means that God always creates though us and we never create anything ourselves.  This is some strange logic.  It is one thing to say that God is the originator of reality and theological truth, it is quite another to suddenly say that because we can’t create truth propositions, we can’t create anything at all, including drawings, flower arrangements, or music.  In Exodus 31:2, God appoints Bezalel son of Uri to design the tabernacle furnishings and we read about him later designing and making these items.  God’s spirit was with him (31:3), but there is no indication that God was anything more than an inspiration, not the sole creator in the process.

I looked on for other perspectives, hoping to find something better to inspire me as a designer.  I found another post about “Theological Design,” which seemed also to have a church-centric focus, although with a decidedly less Reformed angle.  Art and media design in this author’s perspective is for drawing in people who enjoy that sort of thing so that they come to church more and hear the gospel. It is also a good thing to use with existing members to get involved more, stay informed, or better understand a message.  There’s nothing wrong with this approach–using art to facilitate church worship, community, and instruction isn’t bad, it’s what God wanted Bezalel to do when building the tabernacle.  However, I was looking for something more fundamental that would have meaning to both church designers and professional designers who make websites for the local grocery store or restaurant.  Is there a “theology of design” they can look to?

I ran across another post by Sam Mahlstadt, author of the book Creative Theology.  Here he describes some of his ideas about “Creative Theology:”

“One of the most basic concepts of A Creative Theology is that the encounter between an audience and a piece of creation develops a relational bond between that same audience and the creator of the creation. When you encounter a piece of creation, it changes how you view the person who created it. There is a bond or a disconnect experienced in that moment. How you view humanity is a direct reflection of how you view the Creator.”

This is beginning to become useful and interesting.  As a web and graphic designer who is a Christian, I can begin to appreciate the work I do.  Whether I am doing more applied art or art that holds meaning behind it in the way it is creatively manifested (like in the use of light in a  Thomas Kincade painting), a person’s artistic work manifests their relationship with God.  A combination of beauty and functionality is something God would appreciate, both of which are abundantly evident in His creation.  Some of these ideas resonate with the writing of Francis Schaeffer in his book Escape from Reason.  The artist is a prisoner of culture, and his/her work is a reflection of early developments in a cultural shift.  For a Christian who is a prisoner to Christ (in a relationship with Christ), their work is a reflection of that fundamental reality instead.

A final post I came across was the most inspiring.  It was a post by Russell Shaw on his personal blog/portfolio site.  His take on the theology of design or creative theology is as follows:

“There is something about the creative process – and not just for solving design-related problems, but in all creative problem solving – that feels very good to me. It is as though when I am creating something – anything – that I am in a “sweet spot.” My soul tunes to the rhythm of the project and I pour my whole being into the process. The finished product often makes me happy, but it is the work of creating that brings me deep joy.

My belief about our ultimate origin resides in the existence of God. And if it is true – if it is true that He created the heavens and the earth, and at some point created male and female humans, describing us as being in His image - then we exist in the image of a creative Divinity. When we create – be it designs or paintings, lyrics or melodies, scripts or movies, short stories or lectures, campaigns or solutions to social issues, even lesson plans or to-do lists in their own right – we participate in the nature of God. We find a “sweet spot.” Our souls rejoice in the process because we were created to create.”

This sounds wonderful to me.  To design, to be creative, is to take part in the way we were made – in the image of a creative God.  To do so brings us joy – it was how we were designed to be – to enjoy our work and to be creative.  I am reminded of a quote from the writers of the movie Chariots of Fire, where the olympic runner Eric Liddle talks about his gift of running:

“God made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure.” 

This, I believe is the foundation for a theology of design.  God gave us all gifts, like Bezalel in Exod 31:2.  When we use them, we bring him pleasure and his spirit rejoices within us, and we feel it.

³¹ “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
³² It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,
declares the LORD.
³³ “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
³⁴ No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.” – Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV)

I find this passage fascinating – I can get out of this some interesting aspects of this “New Covenant” from this passage alone.  These thoughts were inspired by a class I was in a couple of years ago, but more recently have been on my mind…

• God will play an active role in internalizing his nature into the people of this New Covenant (internalize the ‘law’ – the law being a manifestation of his own ways and principles into rules and regulations for how to live).  The mind = the heart.  These are placed in a poetic 2-stanza parallel structure showing they both mean the same thing.  God places a knowledge of his character into the deepest and decision-making part of our being – our hearts (i.e. our minds).
• Whatever our own intensity is to learn God’s ways and character so we might be more like him, it seems that God is taking the initiative to teach us himself regardless of our level of effort.  He knows how to teach us better than we know how to learn on our own.
• People in this New Covenant will not have to tell each other to “know” God.  This usage of ‘knowing’ in the Hebrew in this context very likely means to have a personal relationship (see Hebrew and other Semitic/ANE languages word study on “to know” research here).  They won’t have to tell each other – “You must get to know God personally!” (verb is in the command state) – because you aren’t in this New Covenant unless you know him personally already.  This means there are a lot of people that claim to be “Christian” but are really not – they don’t know God even though they live externally religious lives – they say and even do nice religious things.  Jesus makes this point clear in Matt 7:2 (italics added by me):
  

  ²¹ “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²² Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

• Knowing God (in a relationship) was not a law in the Old Testament.  It was however a criticism of God’s towards Israel’s religious and political leaders and people (i.e. see Isa 45:4, Jer 2:8, 4:22, 9:3, 9:6, Hosea 4:1, 5:4, 6:6).
• A relationship with God has nothing to do with social or economic status or even vocation within or outside of religious ministry – everyone will know God.  The level of the relationship is up to the individual and God.  Talk to him more = a closer relationship.
• This New Covenant is for people who are sinners but still desire a relationship with God.  If you’re a sinner – you’re a candidate!  If you aren’t a sinner, or don’t think you are, this is not for you.
• The Hebrew word “remember” used here does carry the English meaning that something was forgotten and now recalled, but rather means that something is actively focused on.  So God will no longer “focus” on your sin, which probably means that it is not something that is in the forefront of his mind when dealing with a person in this New Covenant, rather he is focused on “putting his law into our minds” (v.33a) and being in a relationship with us (v.34a).  Whereas people who don’ t have a relationship with him still interact with him in the following ways:
  • Experience his judgement (he has to judge – it’s his job as the ruler of the world)
  • Experience his activity drawing them to himself to have a relationship (Luke 14:23, John 3:16, 12:32)
  • Uses them to further his purposes on Earth. (i.e. Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh)

An old friend of mine from Rochester, a pastor with a PhD in Physics named George, creates a mock dialogue between the believer and the skeptic.  A great summary of the different defense postures of the Christian when discussing religion with skeptics.  Of interest to me (because I never thought of them before) was his criticism of the typical skeptic refusal of a null hypothesis and doing a test that falsifies their hypothesis of God’s non-existence. That is a way to turn the burden of proof to the skeptic.

I also liked the straw-man criticism of the typical “how could a ‘good’ God do bad thing xyz…” skeptical criticism of Christianity.  How often have I heard the argument that God is “evil” from a worldview where there is no God.  I have always believed that good criticism must borrow the worldview of the the other in order to be effective.

Historical Background

Critical scholarship dates the writing of this psalm to a post-exilic period in Israelite history due to: (1) the themes of national restoration mentioned in verse 7, and (2) its classification by some as belonging to the wisdom genre, whose appearance is generally dated during this time.  Conservative scholarship would argue that the Psalm’s title is correct and that David was the author.  Verse 7 is argued to be a later addition by post-exilic editors, but Dahood and Kidner render verse 7 to be “restore to well-being” or “restore the fortunes of,” a more general statement that does not require a post-exilic date.  Scholars that believe the psalm to be Davidic have guessed that it might have been written during David’s time running from Saul where governmental corruption and wickedness existed coupled with the continual international threat of Philistine oppression and opposition.  Others guess it was composed based on the events of the Absalom rebellion mentioned in 2 Sam. 15-18.

Psalm 14 is nearly identical to Psalm 53.  Its chief difference is the term used for God’s name.  Psalm 14 uses Yahweh while Psalm 53, which appears in what is considered the later-dated “Elohistic Psalter,” features the more general word for God, elohim.  Because of this, some propose that Psalm 14 is the original composition and 53 was a later editorial adaptation, and more specifically for those who date the psalm later, possibly edited to appeal to a post-exilic audience. Others feel that Psalm 14 is a generalization of Psalm 53, thus classifying 14 as the duplicated and edited version.  The other notable difference between Psalm 14 and 53 is the description of the judgement of the evildoers.  Psalm 53:5 uses wording that appears to some as a judgement on Israel’s international enemies, and thus mistakenly identify the enemies similarly in Psalm 14.

Scholars who believe this psalm was written by an individual based on their personal experience and deny a Davidic authorship are hard pressed to determine the situation that gave rise to its composition.  Two tentative possibilities have been put forth.  The first is that the psalmist and the nation of Israel were experiencing hardship from surrounding hostile nations.  The second is that the ruling class within Israel had become corrupt and were taking advantage of the righteous who were unable to resist them.   Weiser cites Isaiah 5:8 and Jeremiah 5:12 as examples of this kind of activity, although their mention is not a reason to date them to the same time.  The powerful’s unhindered oppression of the righteous is a common theme mentioned elsewhere in the Psalter (e.g. Psalms 10, 12) as well as in other wisdom books.  This issue is a common and legitimate area of confusion for faithful people in Israel under a theocratic system of government.

Overview & Structure

Psalm 14 can be classified as an instructional or “wisdom” psalm.  Its main theme is the wrongness of the powerful in society who unjustly take advantage of the weak, and it is a reminder that God is on the side of the faithful, and will rise up on their behalf and put an end to the plans of their oppressors.

There are only a few structural arrangements proposed.  It appears universally accepted that verse 7 is distinct from the previous six.  On the other hand, scholars differ on how to structure verses 1-6.  None see any particular creative arrangement.  Most scholars believe that verses 1-6 can be divided into two parts: verses 1-3 describe the godlessness of a group of people, while 4-6 feature a rebuke of and a divine threat to these godless men oppressing the faithful in Israel, of which the psalmist is a member of.

Some commentators believe that the structure of the original psalm has changed over time.  Specifically, Delitzch feels that the original may have been modified, noting a pattern of three line verse sections that strangely stop at verses 5 and 6, which very likely had three as well.

Verse Commentary

Verses 1-3: A Lament about the Fool

1. “The fool…” The word translated as fool is nābāl, and seems to be best translated as “ignorant.”  Whether it is a chosen ignorance, motivated by laziness or selfishness, or one that is caused externally by one’s environment or a young age appears slightly unclear in this text.  In all the other usages of the word in the Psalms and in other books of the Old Testament, the term describes adults who should know better, namely the people of Israel who in general have less of an excuse to be ignorant of God’s laws and commands for right conduct than the surrounding nations.  The only exception where the word nābāl is not used to describe a post-Sinai Israelite or group of Israelites is found in Job 2:10 where Job tells his wife she is speaking like a nābāl woman.  Despite this occurrence, which could be understood as referring to either intentional or unintentional ignorance, it appears very likely that nābāl in Psalm 14:1 is talking about people who for whatever reason, choose to remain ignorant of the reality of God’s desire for men to live in right ways and his role as acting judge in Israel’s theocratic government to punish men who are wicked.

The next question is, is nābāl referring to sinister or stubborn ignorance? Bennett notes that nābāl actions on behalf of individuals or groups of Israelites can cause serious guilt and consequences to the community.  Furthermore, he sees an etymological link with an earlier meaning of the word that has connotations with intentional sacrilegious activity.
Beside nābāl, the term translated as “fool” or “simple” in English can actually be 1 of 4 (or more) different Hebrew words that have slightly different meanings when found in the Old Testament: kesîl, ewîl, petî, and sākāl  A survey of these similar words further elucidates the meaning of nābāl as used in this context as a more serious or sinister ignorance; one that is chosen and intentional.  According to Bennett: (1) kesîl is the fool who is unwise and unfortunately stubborn and unteachable, but does not appear to be evil or sinister (e.g. Prov 26:1,3-11).  (2) ewîl  is the fool who seems slightly less sinister than the kesîl variety, and is a more simple kind of fool because they cannot control their temper or their mouth, and do not pursue wisdom (e.g. Job 5:2).  (3) petî refers to the simple minded and easily seduced, but seems to be open to instruction, unlike the kesîl or ewîl types (e.g. Prov 9:4).  (4) sākāl is used to describe ignorance as evidenced in action, not in speech like the ewîl type; the adjective “bumbling” might best describe this kind of fool (e.g. Genesis 31:28).

“Says in his heart…” The word translated “heart” here is leb, which is the rational, thinking part of a person.  “says” in just another way of saying “thinks.” This phrase could be better understood as “thinks in his mind…” or more generally “believes.”
“There is no God…”  Nearly all commentators and scholars see this as a statement of practical atheism, not a dogmatic or philosophical atheism.  The practical atheist could easily assume the role of a practicing theist in every external sense as opposed to the atheist who philosophically denies the reality of God but strives to live a strict moral life internally. This kind of person is especially dangerous if put into a position of religious or political power, which would lead to disastrous societal consequences for anyone less powerful than themselves.
It might be of worthy of note that the psalmist describes these men by their internal beliefs rather than their overt appearance or actions, possibly leading the reader to understand them to be superficially ‘wise.’  On the other hand, it is just as likely that the psalmist is saying that they are corrupt down to the center of their being, not just good at heart and following the wrong crowd such as the simpleton petî person.  In either case, the disposition of this type of nābāl person the psalmist introduced at the beginning of this psalm has become more clear with each new phrase as a person who has been corrupted at the center of their being.

“They are corrupt, their deeds are vile.” This statement further clarifies that these men, in their pursuit of intentional ignorance of God’s ways have become corrupt in their minds.  This has led them to commit acts that are vile.  The world translated as vile, ta’ab is found in other instances to mean disgusting and repulsive on a moral and emotional level.  This is not a word describing a person breaking ceremonial regulations.  It is possible that David had Doeg the Edomite in mind and his slaughter of the priests of Nob and their families as mentioned in 1 Sam 22:18-19, but it could just as easily be any in Saul’s cabinet of corrupt officials.  However, other commentators feel that this and the following phrase is the psalmist recalling past widespread wickedness on a large scale, such as the state of humanity before and directly after the flood.  This is rather unlikely because it is not following the line of thought that the psalmist is continuing, which is an increasingly detailed description of the fool that he has in mind.

“There is no one who does good.” This phrase is confusing to the exegete who seeks to understand this psalm from a literary perspective.  It is not immediately clear who the subject of this indictment is.  All humanity?  The nation of Israel as a whole?  All Israel’s enemies? All the nābāl types of people described in the previous sentences?  Anderson takes the approach that the psalmist is talking about the widespread corruption of the nation of Israel. Elsewhere in the Old Testament writers do refer to the inherit sinfulness of men (1 Kgs 8:46, Ps 143:2, Prov 20:9) but they are all saying something slightly different in these verses – that there are none who are sinless, not none who do good.
The most likely group that is referred to is the fools talked about in the preceding phrases.  This makes the most logical sense considering the subject of the previous sentences and the author’s direction of thought.  This is the final thought in a series of increasingly worse descriptions of the nābāl type of person introduced at the beginning:  (1) they are intentionally ignorant; (2) They have made a decisive internal decision that God doesn’t matter; (3) They have become corrupt and do morally repulsive deeds, and (4) they are so depraved and selfish they are incapable of doing any good at all.  A more natural translation would be “There is not one [of them] who does good.”  It is possible that the psalmist is using hyperbolic language to describe this group.

v.2 “The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men…” In verse two, the psalmist contrasts the picture of willfully ignorant men who do not acknowledge God with a scene were God himself examines at the “sons of men” to see if there are any who are not like the nābāl types – who do seek God and who intentionally choose to act wisely.  The term “looks down from heaven” could be a reference to the tower of Babel where God “came down” to see what the men where building.  However, the same confusion returns in this verse as in the last one.  Who are “the sons of men” in this sentence?  All mankind?  All of Israel?  All of the nābāl, types mentioned up to this point?
Briggs argues that it must be understood in context– this is still referring to the nābāl type of men referred to up until this point.  However, Anderson argues that the psalmist has opened up the scope of men being scrutinized to the nation of Israel as a whole.  As before, this seems unlikely but for a different reason: it would mean the psalmist has now included himself with the group of people that cannot do any good.  How can the psalmist place himself in such a category when his simple heartfelt discouragement and a desire to improve or at least an acknowledgement of his own sin is in itself good?  If this statement is to be taken universally, it would be self-contradicting according to God’s perspective of a contrite heart (Psalm 51:7) or of one who humbly acknowledges what is true.
If it is true that verses 2 and 3 are still referring to the fool, then the question arises as to why God searches the motivations of men to find if anyone is good.  It may be likely that the psalmist is using hyperbole to describe the level of depravity of these men in this way.  A more likely explanation of the repeated indictment is that the psalmist is further illustrating the evil of the men he is describing by moving on from just his own observations from his limited vantage point in v.1 to further squash all doubt by describing the same group from God’s omniscient perspective (v.2), one that reaches the same conclusion of their internal makeup as the psalmist’s while at the same time employing hyperbolic and anthropomorphic language.

v.3  “All have turned away, all have become corrupt…” A repetition of the final analysis of verse 1, that these body of men that the psalmist is describing are completely corrupt in the eyes of God.  Again, commentators see this language as similar to the extreme situation found before the flood.

Verses 4-6: God’s rebuke and judgement of the fools.

v.4 “Will evildoers never learn…” Some conservative commentators feel that the evildoers mentioned in this verse have nothing to do with the nābāl type of men referred to up until this point, but this seems unlikely since he just left off talking about them in the previous verse.  Without a definitive shift in the subject, it is only natural to assume that the psalmist is picking up where he left off with the same group of people he has been describing before since they are similarly addressed. Anderson sees this group as being evil men in power within Israel because it is not likely that the heathen nations should be expected to learn from or seek God or at least be criticized for not doing so. Bratcher believes this statement reveals God’s amazement at the ignorance of people who aught to know better.  Cragie, along with other commentators, sees God speaking in verse 4 after he has surveyed the motivations and hearts of the “sons of men.”
Recent research has shed more light on this confusing phrase.  When a question starts with hala meaning “whether/does not?”  it often functions as a rhetorical question that invites a positive answer.   The word niph which has been traditionally translated in this passage “learn” can also mean to “consider, think, or reason.” (e.g. 2 Sam. 24:13) It is likely that this phrase has an object rather than being a complete thought by itself as the traditional NIV translation suggests, and would better be rendered as “Do they not realize…?” with a description of what is not realized revealed in the proceeding phrase.

“Those who devour my people as men eat bread.” This adjective clause has puzzled scholars.  Its verbal portion is found in the Hebrew literally translated as “eating my people they eat bread…”  Most commentators have come to a unified conclusion that this phrase means that these men think no more of their acts of oppression than they do of eating bread, describing the careless and casual attitude they have towards taking advantage of others.  It could also be understood in a similar sense that they oppress others with the same frequency as they eat bread, implying that they do so all the time. Either interpretation communicates the carelessness of these men.

This statement introduces a new group of people in contrast to the powerful foolish that have been the subject of this psalm up to this point– the people of God– who are suffering under the yoke of the wicked.  This same group is later referred to as “the righteous” in verse 5, “the poor” in verse 6, and specifically the “Lord’s people” in verse 7.  This places those who hold a universal understanding of verse 3 in a logically difficult position.  In order to keep verse 3 as a universal description of fallen man,  Alexander concludes that “my people” mentioned here is part of the group criticized earlier in verse 2 who never do good.  Thus, he is forced to deal with the logical complications of a universal perspective found there at odds with the people of God mentioned here.  This can only make sense if it is assumed that the people of God can do no good, which seems highly unlikely.  God’s people are the ones who obey and fear him (e.g. Ps 103:17-18.)  How can they obey him if they cannot do good?  Alexander answers this by saying that “All men are alike ‘children of wrath’,  but some are elected to be ‘vessels of mercy…’” thus reasoning that God picks men out of that group that can do no right, and makes them to be His people.  This is none other than a short defense and description of a highly controversial doctrine introduced by a Theordor Beza, a student of Calvin who revised Anselm’s theories on the penal substitutionary death of Christ to be an act available to a only a limited number of people rather than for just anyone, a doctrine otherwise known as “limited atonement,” closely coupled with the complementary doctrine of “irresistible grace.”

Regardless, if one insists on interpreting the difficulties of these two groups with a reformed theological approach, logical problems still abound.  The “my people” of verse 4 are still included in the group of fools who can do no good in verse 3 regardless of God having elected them as ‘his people.’ According to timeless and universal interpretation of verse 3, they were and still are unable to be God’s people, due to the fact that they do not do what is right because as stated earlier, God’s people are ones that fear and obey him (e.g. Psalm 103:17-18).  So eisegeting this passage with Reformed doctrines in mind cannot logically bring us to the conclusion that the fools of verse 3 represent all of humanity if  “my people” refers to God’s people without disregarding what other scripture clearly says.
The only logical recourse left to the Reformed scholar would be to interpret “my people” as the psalmist’s people or nation rather than as the people of God.  But this again has problems.  Most scholars believe the wrongdoers mentioned in 4 are referring to men who are Israelites,  although some do mention the theory with less certainty.  If this were the case, this would make the wrongdoers also “David’s people,”  which would make little sense if used this way.  It would be unlikely and impossible to prove that David meant “his people” to represent the faithful subset of Israel which he was a part of as opposed to the nation as a whole.

After surveying the number of difficulties in viewing verse 3 as a universal picture of the depravity of mankind due to the presence of this second group of righteous people, we are left to interpret verse 3 as referring to the foolish men introduced at the beginning of the psalm.

“And who do not call on the LORD.” Some see this phrase as a descriptive synonym of the practical atheist, one who does not acknowledge the Lord, and thus does not pray to Him.  Others see this in terms of the wicked oppressors of God’s people eating the bread made by none other than God himself, but not praying to Him in thanks for it. A more likely possibility is a consideration of alternative meanings of the word qārā that has been translated here as “call.”  This word can also be translated as “meet, encounter, or confront” (e.g. Amos 4:12) which makes more sense in this context.  It would seem odd that the psalmist would state the obvious that evildoers do not pray to God.  A better translation for the entire verse would be “Do they not realize, the evildoers who devour my people like bread, that they will not encounter God,” or even better “Do these evildoers who devour my people like bread not realize that they will encounter God?”

v.5.  “There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous.” The presence of the word “there” has puzzled scholarship, but they have surmised the meaning to be a point in time when the wicked were suddenly overcome with calamity, which can be the only explanation of what caused them to be overwhelmed with dread, and probably not as Briggs suggests that they were suddenly overcome with fear without reason. The details of their reason for dread is not mentioned, but one can see that God will engineer the calamity that will cause this because he is present to help the righteous.

v.6. “You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the LORD is their refuge.” This appears to be a reiteration of the themes in verses 4 and 5.  The word “refuge” means “to seek protection with.”  This translation is not universally accepted by scholars.  Weiser sees the plans that are frustrated as belonging to the evildoers, not the poor.  He translates this verse “Your plan against the poor will be confounded, for the Lord is his refuge.”  Other scholars agree with this translation, and believe that this verse may have become corrupted over time.  Many translations use the word “afflicted” instead of “poor” which makes more sense in this context.

v.7. “When the LORD restores His captive people…” Anderson supports a more generic translation of  “When the Lord restores the fortunate of his people, but admits it is disputed. Leupold and Kidner also gravitate towards this interpretation. This rendition would make more sense if the psalm were written during David’s lifetime and the last verse was not a later addition by the post-exilic community.  Leupold sees the mention of Zion being the hill in Jerusalem where David pitched the tent for the Ark of the Covenant, so it would be sensible to poetically say in his time that salvation would come from Zion, God’s earthly abode at the time.

Theological Insights

Although confusing and heavily debated, there are certain insights that can be taken from Psalm 14:

• God allows the wicked to prosper and to oppress His people.
• God is always in the presence of his people during these times of oppression.
• God does not immediately remove evil men from power right away.
• In times of oppression, God is available for his people to turn to.
• God sees into the hearts of all men and sees their true intentions and motivations.
• A life lived without acknowledging God’s moral statues appears to lead men towards a corrupted selfish nature.

Practical Application

It is good to know as Wilson states, “where God’s sympathies lie.”   It is hard for me to imagine a state of society being this bad after living in America in relative peace for all of my life.  These words must have been great comfort to the early Church, as well as the church today that faces intense persecution in other countries hostile towards Christianity.  But even if the Christian is not facing intense oppression and unfair treatment by others, it is good to know that God is right by their side during the hard seasons of life, no matter how painful.

Although it does not seem that verse 3 in this psalm represents a picture of mankind’s complete depravity, one can looks at the psalmist’s building description of the “fool” who does not acknowledge God’s rules for moral conduct and reflect inward on their own disposition towards God.  As a Christian, it is a reminder to not drift too far away from God, who is not only the instructor of what is morally right, but is also the one who inspires and strengthens His people to uphold what is right.   Practical atheism cuts a person off from their source of moral inspiration and strength.  Although a Christian cannot unintentionally be cut-off, they can definitely stray away from God and loose their strong connection to this strength and guidance.  These thoughts bring to mind Jesus’ prayer when his disciples asked him how to pray: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

In order to understand this issue better, I have chosen to examine the Old Testament’s use of the Hebrew word yāda‘ , (to perceive, to know) in terms of God “knowing” man or man “knowing” God.  With a thorough study of this word and its nuanced meanings found throughout the Old Testament and a brief look at its counterparts in the Ancient Near Eastern languages of the time, a good foundation can be laid for further studies in the disciplines of theology and philosophy.  None of these disciplines or any topic within them, however, will be addressed.

Overview of yāda‘

According to scholarship, the different meanings of yāda‘ are difficult to relate to one another.  The range is expansive – it covers knowing facts (intellectual knowing), knowing people (relational knowing), in-depth knowledge and practice of a skill (experiential knowing), and even sexual intimacy.[3] Other uses of yāda‘ in the Old Testament (and in ANE language usage) seem to depart from the general concept of “knowing” in a general sense: “to choose” and “to care for.”

A Note on a Holistic Meaning

It is noted that most usages of yāda‘ (not considering the most narrow uses of intellectual knowing) assume an interactive relationship between the subject and the object that modern Western thinking wants to pull apart.[4] This is best illustrated by Jeremiah 22:16:  “… he defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well.  Is this not what it means to know me, declares the LORD?”  Genuine knowledge, to Jeremiah at least and the Hebrew mind at best, meant that a person’s behavior reflects his knowledge; otherwise it is superficial and false.  To know God necessarily involved obedience to him.  True knowledge involves sensory experience and interaction between the subject and the object on not just an intellectual level, but also (when appropriate) on a behavioral or emotional level.  To the ancient and modern spiritually sensitive literary mind[5], these different levels were inseparable from the broader sense of “knowing.”  Along the same idea of knowing through experience and active interaction with the object is knowing gained through contemplation (Prov 1:4, 2:6, 5:2).[6]

Common/Secular Uses

While there are many uses of yāda‘ in the Old Testament involving intellectual or factual knowledge, for the purposes of this paper, we will be investigating a subset that relate to knowledge of people, relationships, or of a particular skill.  After understanding this category,  we can then move to the category of its religious usage—of man “knowing” God; concepts that would have been adapted from already existing common or secular uses.  To understand one will help in the understanding of the other.

Practical Skills

The first category of interest is the use of yāda‘ in describing a practical skill, e.g. hunting (Genesis 25:27), sailing (1^st Kgs 9:27, 2^nd Ch 8:18), reading (Isaiah 29:11-12), music composition (1 Sam 16:16-18),  lumbering (1 Kgs 5:6, 2 Chron 2:8), law-making (Esth 1:13), architecture (2 Chron 2:16), metallurgy (2 Chron 2:7,2:14) and speaking (Jer 1:6).[7] Most occurrences involve the use of yāda‘ followed by what a person is skilled or knowledgeable in:  “skilled in…”, “trained in…”, “experienced in…”, “knew the…”  One exception is its general use in 2 Chron 2:13 which describes Huram-Abi as a man of “great skill” or translated literally: “A man of wisdom, knowing understanding” ( hn”yBi [:dEAy ~k'x'-vyai) ).  Each of these instances point to the use of yāda‘ as having the meaning of knowing that involves experience of, and interaction with, the object.  In all examples given, the skilled person(s) are not portrayed as intellectually knowing about the skill, but rather as those who have experience with it or have made practical use of it.

Akkadian has a corresponding usage[8] of “knowing” a skill using the verb e/idû (to know) in passages like Gilg. XI.175f, which alludes to the abilities of Ea, the god of manufacture: “Who produces anything, then, other than Ea? Indeed Ea knows every craft!”[9] Egyptian has a similar usage for knowing a skill with rḫ. The phrase rḫ ḫt refers to a person of skill: a craftsman, scholar, magician, or ritualist.[10] It is also used in as an adjective such as rḫ d̠b’w,“with skillful hands.”

Knowing People, Nations, or Animals

People knowing other people, other nations, or even animals makes use of the verb yāda‘. The first instance is when Jacob asks the shepherds at the well if they “know” Laben.  They reply that they do “know” him. (Gen 29:5).  However, it is impossible to know if the shepherds mean “know of” or “heard of” him (but aren’t actually personally acquainted with him) or if they are.  The former usage seems more likely, but it is impossible to know for sure from this text alone.  It seems Jacob was using “do you know” not in the relational sense, but in the “Are you familiar with/have you heard of” sense.  We also find this same general sense of being familiar with a person from Deut 22:2 regarding the law of returning a lost animal “If the brother does not live near you or if you do not know who he is, take it home with you and keep it until he comes looking for it…”  The use of yāda‘ here is one of basic familiarity or factual knowledge of another person – A person either knows or doesn’t know the animal’s owner.

Another use of yāda‘ that seems to carry the connotation of experience and relationship can be found in Moses’ address to the Israelite nation in Deut 9:24: “You have been rebellious against the LORD ever since I have known you.”  Although he is addressing the nation, there is no doubt Moses can say this from direct experience with a majority of people from the different Israelite tribes or from incidents he had heard about.  It seems in this context that yāda‘ can be used to refer to experiential knowledge, although not necessarily personal, about the general behavior of a group of people.  An experiential knowledge of another nation is also what may be understood by the use of yāda‘ in Deut 22:2, 38:33, and 28:36 all which describe an invading nation as “unfamiliar” or one that they “do not know” (NIV translation).  The Babylonians and Assyrians who eventually fulfilled this covenant curse were “known” in a factual sense very well to the nations of Israel and Judah (and all other nations around them), but were probably not known in an experiential sense: these people did not live among them that they would know them.  Psalm 18:43 may have a similar meaning.  Ezek 28:19 illustrates the opposite: a nation “knowing” another: “All the nations who knew you are appalled at you;…” (Ezek 28:19).

Moving towards the usage of yāda‘ to describe a person “knowing” another person, we find in 1 Sam 10:11 people who had formerly known Saul confused as to why he was prophesying.  In this sense we find that yāda‘ can mean “knowing” a person who is at least familiar with another person’s ways and life in order to know that their behavior is odd.  However, it would still be hard to say from this passage alone that the people speaking about Saul were at one time close friends or acquaintances.  They were at least acquaintances familiar enough with Saul to know his background.  So yāda‘ can be used to describe a person “knowing” another as a general acquaintance and be familiar with their ways and behavior.  This is probably the meaning of “to know” used in other passages (2 Sam 3:25, 17:8, and 2 Kings 9:11).

In the ANE, this concept of “knowing” a person may be similar to the concept used in the phrase “friend of the king” (mudū ŝarri in Akkadian) and rḫ [n] nsw in Egyptian.  In Ugaritic, yd’ can be used to refer to knowing about another in both identity and behavior. El “knows” (yd’) the true nature of Anat, and about her plans to kill him.[11]

In Job we find uses of yāda‘ to describe a person knowing another person well – either as a close friend or family member.  In Job 19:13 we find Job talking about God: “He has alienated my brothers from me; my acquaintances from me.”  The qal participle form of the verb is used here, and we have the benefit of seeing it reflected in a Hebrew parallelism with “brother.”  Although brothers do not necessarily have close relationships, it seems in this context they are thought of to be so from Job’s experience.  He is implying he misses them or their companionship, which in turns implies that they had a close relationship, or at the very least, he enjoyed their company.  However, the fact that he desired their presence when he was suffering seems as if he is describing a person or people who are close friends or family members.  A person doesn’t desire to see distant acquaintances when they are suffering.  Later on in Job 42:11 we find that Job is reunited with his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before.  They “came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him…”  These people seem like the ones he wished he could see in 19:13.

Psalm 88:9 & 19 seem to echo Job 19:13 using the same word for alienate (rāḥaq) “You have taken from me my closest friends and have made me repulsive to them…”  Furthermore, term “closest friends” is actually a pual participle form of yāda‘ (y[;D"yUm.))). The striking similarity in context and linguistics may be an indication that the Psalmist had this passage of Job in mind.[12] Since “knowing” here is used to describe a close friendship, the possibility that Job is describing a close friend in 19:13 seems even more likely because it was what the psalmist thought too.  This in turn tells us that yāda‘ can be used mean to have a close relationship or friendship with someone.

Not just people groups or people, but also animals can be “known” by people.  “A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal…” (Prov 12:10)[13].   This is literally “knows the soul of his animal.” (ATm.h,B. vp,n< qyDIc; [:dEAy).  This meaning strongly implies that “knowing” is accompanied by action to such a strong degree that the English “to know” is stretched too far and “to care for” becomes more accurate.  To “know” an animal means to care for it, similar to how showing kindness/love (ḥesed) to someone is accompanied by action.

So we find in this example that yāda‘ can hold the concept of “knowing” accompanied by acceptable behavior that is assumed to be present because of the knowing.  However, by the parallel structure found here, the combination of knowing and acting correctly according to that knowledge seems to be what righteous people do.  The opposite is “not knowing” which means not acting according to the knowledge one knows, although one knows what to do, i.e. “not caring” for an animal.  Another thing to note here is that the verse is talking about extremes.  Righteous men are kind even to their animals; how much more so would they be to people.  It would logical to extend this meaning of yāda‘ regarding knowing that assumes appropriate behavior to the realm of inter-personal relationships.  Job 9:21 may have a similar usage in the negative sense: "Although I am blameless, I have no concern ([d:ae-al{) for myself; I despise my own life.”

Akkadian inscriptions have been found that contain this use in the El Amarna letters.  In one letter, Abdi-Asirta, the king of Amurru, calls upon the help of Amenophis III that ends with the plea “May the king and lord know me (lu-u yi-da-an-ni) and put me under the charge of Pahamnate, my royal governor.”[14] Elsewhere in the El Amarna letters, the use of e/idu ana “to be concerned with, to care for” can be found.[15] We find this elsewhere in Akkadian personal names such as ili(AN)-i-da-an-ni, ili(AN)-ú-dan-ni, “My god knows me.” i.e. “My god cares for me.” Also nabû-adanni, “Nabû knows me.”[16]

A final category of a person “knowing” another person refers the act of sexual intimacy.  A majority of these uses occur in the Pentateuch and Judges (13 times) and elsewhere only twice.  Nearly half of these instances are used to describe a woman who is a virgin. “No man had ever lain with her” (Gen 24:16), “…every woman who has slept with a man” (Nu 31:17), “…every girl who has never slept with a man…” (Nu 31:18), and “32,000 women who had not slept with a man…” (Nu 31:35).  The other half is used to describe the act itself, i.e. “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant” (Gen 4:1). Out of these instances, it is used twice to describe homosexual behavior (Gen 19:5, Judges 19:22) and once for rape (Judges 19:25).

Overall, it seems that none of the instances of yāda‘ in this category imply a close relationships or any relationship at all or even a familiarity between the people involved like “knowing” people did in prior examples.  For example, the men of Sodom did not know Lot’s visitors, but wanted to have sex with them.  It seems that this usage is simply describing the act alone with no other connotations.  This observation, coupled with the presence of the same usage of “to know (sexually)” in other ANE languages, such as Egyptian (rh)[17], Akkadian (e/idû)[18], Ugaritic (yd’)[19], and Arabic (arafa) points to this usage of yāda‘ as a euphuism[20] whose origin is proto-Semitic.

Religious Uses

Now that we have surveyed the uses of yāda‘ in secular contexts involving people “knowing” people or animals, we can begin to analyze its use in religious contexts.  It is of interest to note that most of the uses of yāda‘ referring to individuals “knowing” individuals involves people knowing God (40+ occurrences).  Nearly half of that amount involves uses of people “knowing” other people or animals.  Another 14 or so occurrences involve God himself “knowing” people.  So whatever the meaning of yāda‘ in a religious context, it is in this sense that the Old Testament has the most to say―about the different ways that mankind and God can know or not know each other.

The first instance we find of man knowing (or in this case, not knowing) God is found in Exodus.  Pharaoh tells Moses after he is asked to let the Israelites go: “Who is the LORD that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go.” (Exodus 5:2).  Yahweh was not a god worshipped in the Egyptian pantheon, and only recently did God himself give Moses a unique name to give the Israelites to designate himself (hw”hy>), so it is quite natural to assume Pharaoh did not know him in any sense, either factually or relationally.  This use of knowing God could be similar to Jacob use asking the shepherds at the well if  they “knew” Laban (Gen 29:5), but in the negative sense.  So “knowing” God could simply mean that a person has “heard about” or “heard of” him.

The religious use of  yāda‘ begins to become more interesting in the covenant curses passages in Deuteronomy where God repeatedly warns his people not follow other gods (Deut 11:28, 13:2, 13:6, 13:13, 28:64, 29:26, 32:17)  “that you have not known” ~T’[.d:y>-al{ rv,a] ~yrIxea] ~yhil{a/ or “that neither you nor your fathers have known.” ^yt,boa]w: hT’a; T’[.d:y" al{ rv,a] ~yrIxea] ~yhil{a/.  What is clear is that if God is talking about the Egyptian gods, the gods that Israel would eventually adopt from the land of Canaan, or the gods of Babylon or Assyria, these are all gods that the Israelites were either already familiar with or would become familiar with as these nations grew in influence. Not only were they familiar with these gods by name, but they were familiar with the different rituals involved in worshipping them (Judges 17-18, Jeremiah 7:18, 44) and their mythological histories.  It would be a stretch even to say that the gods they are warned to follow are ones that they don’t know currently (at the time of the giving of the law), because that would exclude all of the Egyptian and Canaanite gods which the Israelites were at least acquainted with.

It would make more sense that this use of “not knowing” is drawing from the form where relational experience is implied.  This usage would be similar to 1 Sam 10:11 where men who knew Saul were confused by his behavior, or similar to its usage in Deut 9:24 where Moses said he “knew” the Israelites and their rebellious tendencies.  At the point of giving the law, it could be said that the Israelites in general “knew” God in this sense―they had all seen his miraculous signs continuously since the Exodus from Egypt.  Their forefathers knew and experienced Yahweh as well (Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Joseph).  These seven instances of God telling the nation of Israel not to follow “gods you do not know” or more specifically “gods that neither you (now or ever) nor your forefathers knew” assumes that both they and their ancestors are on the same page – all had some experiential knowledge of God. It would be hard to say to what the degree of closeness was in that relationship; if it was on the level of an acquaintance or intimate one.  However, it could be said that they understood to some degree his ways, his abilities, and his behavior by his revelation to them.  These “other” gods that are mentioned are probably seen in the negative sense of this meaning.  This contrast most likely brings out this relational/experiential meaning of yāda‘ used here.  The Israelites have not in their past, nor will they ever “know” in an experiential sense, other gods like they “know” Yahweh as he had revealed himself to them.

We find another meaning begin to surface of a man “knowing” God in 1 Sam 3:7: “Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD: the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.  What we do know quite clearly is that Samuel knew about God; he lived with Eli the priest near the tabernacle for some time by this point. What he didn’t know was God himself on a personal or experiential level.  That very night Samuel became acquainted with God personally―he spoke to him and told him the future of Eli and his family.  In bold contrast to this lies the description of Eli’s sons: priests who had no regard (W[d>y" al{) for the LORD.  This meaning seems similar to its use by Job 9:31 where he states he has no concern ([d:ae-al) for himself.  In both cases, this involves actively choosing not to behave in a way that is consistent with what they know.  There is a right way to care for your body and life; there is a right way to “know” God.  In Jeremiah 22:16, a statement possibly referring to Josiah, God says “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.”  An important aspect of knowing God in this sense is to follow his ways and care about the things he cares about.  The Israelites in Jeremiah’s time definitely knew about God (they regularly worshipped at his temple and felt Jerusalem was safe because God’s presence was there), and they had heard stories of what he did at least during the reign of Hezekiah and possibly also stories of his protection and miraculous intervention in wars with earlier kings.  Some probably knew to a degree his pattern of behavior by experience at these events, others only heard about it.

Another use of yāda‘ can be found in Prov 3:6 that supports the concept of active knowing with a person’s ways as the subject and God as the object: “in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.” (Wh[ed" ^yk,r"D>-lk'B.)  The verb form used here is more intense than the NIV translates; it is in the imperative form (i.e. “know God!”) similar to Jeremiah 31:34.  The idea of active knowing is brought out most strongly here by highlighting the “active” part of what it means to know God—to live a life that reflects his ways and his behavior.

God speaking though Jeremiah complains about the priests not wondering where God has gone, and those who practice law (possibly also Levites)[21] not “knowing” him. (Jer 2:8).  The priests, who of all people should know God the closest, do not know him in any personal way that would enable them to realize he is gone from their midst.  Those who deal with the law likewise ought to know at least God’s ways to enable them to make right legal judgments, but they do not.  If they knew about God’s ways, they did not apply them to their legal work, and thus in the sense of yāda‘ meaning an active knowing;  they do not “know” God.[22]

It is clear, with the verses mentioned and many others that one of the great problems the majority of people faced in Israel was they had no “active knowledge” of God (Isa 45:4, Jer 2:8, 4:22, 9:3, 9:6, Hosea 4:1, 5:4, 6:6).[23] In reading these verses, a concerned listener or reader might wonder how they might come to “know” God in this sense.  If they are to know God by imitating his ways in their lives, how are they to know his ways so that they can obey them?  The priests and Levites clearly knew the law, but did not know God personally, as did both Jeremiah and Isaiah as evidenced by their writings and upbringing as priests.  If it is clear that one could know the law, but still not know God, how could one “know” God this way?

It seems our answer comes from the prophets themselves: Isaiah says of the righteous person, “
God instructs him and teaches him the right way.” (Isa 28:26).  “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.” (Isa 48:17).  “Many peoples will come and say ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord… He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths (Isa 2:3, Mic 4:2).

Even more clues come from the Psalms.  Psalm 119 is filled with ways that a person can learn God’s ways: “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law” (Ps 119:18).  “Help me to understand the teaching of your precepts (Ps 119:27).  “I have not departed from your laws, for you yourself have taught me. (Ps 119:102).  It seems clear: an active knowing (the ability to know God and follow his ways) comes from, and is sustained by, a personal relationship with God.[24] It is God who teaches guides, gives council when asked, and helps someone who knows him to better understand his laws and his ways.  These are all activities that require a two-way interaction with God.  Reading the law and “knowing it” was evidently not enough.  Active knowing requires a personal relationship with God.  Like the people who knew Job and came to console him (Job 42:11), so God desired to “know” his people–on a personal, intimate level.

“Knowing” God in the New Covenant

We find echoes of the new covenant as early as Deut. 30:5, 6[25]: “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”  This is said of the people of Israel after they had suffered the effects of the covenant curses.  Jeremiah restates this in 24:7: “I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.” Later, in the most famous passage of all describing the new covenant:

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.  No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. (Jer 31:33-34)

So what does this new covenant have to do with knowing God?  The use of (yāda‘) to mean active knowing is used here as well as in the passages already cited; it cannot simply mean intellectual assent or awareness of God’s laws[26] here because that was not why the old covenant failed.  It does not appear to be a treaty term for agreement between a suzerain and a vassal as some scholars assume because its use elsewhere in the prophets seem to be compared with “understanding” or “knowledge of God” or other contexts where the idea is clearly a relational knowing of God and his ways, not of breaking a contract.[27] There was no commandment in the law that demanded people to “know” God, so not “knowing” God was not a sin that the new covenant would enable God’s people to now be able to do.[28] God had already encouraged his people to “know him.”[29] He has already warned them and criticized them that they did not know him although they assumed they did[30], and has already told them how they can.[31] So there is no difference in how people “know” God between the old covenant and the new, but it appears that there is a difference in the covenant’s audience.  It will be (at least)[32] with the people of Israel, but only with ones who choose to “know” God personally and actively.

Appendix: Passage Listing of Uses of yāda‘ Pertaining to People, Skills, or Animals

Man “Knowing” Man / Man “Knowing” Group,  Group “Knowing” Group

1.     Genesis 29:5 He said to them, “Do you know Laban, Nahor’s grandson?” “Yes, we know him,” they answered.

2.     Deuteronomy 9:24 You have been rebellious against the LORD ever since I have known you.

3.     Deuteronomy 22:2 If the brother does not live near you or if you do not know who he is, take it home with you and keep it until he comes looking for it. Then give it back to him.

4.     Deuteronomy 28:33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days.

5.     Deuteronomy 28:36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone.

6.     Deuteronomy 33:9 He said of his father and mother, ‘I have no regard for them.’ He did not recognize his brothers or acknowledge his own children, but he watched over your word and guarded your covenant.

7.     1 Samuel 10:11 When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?”

8.     2 Samuel 3:25 You know Abner son of Ner; he came to deceive you and observe your movements and find out everything you are doing.”

9.     2 Samuel 17:8 You know your father and his men; they are fighters, and as fierce as a wild bear robbed of her cubs. Besides, your father is an experienced fighter; he will not spend the night with the troops.

10.  2 Samuel 22:44 “You have delivered me from the attacks of my people; you have preserved me as the head of nations. People I did not know are subject to me,

11.  2 Kings 9:11 When Jehu went out to his fellow officers, one of them asked him, “Is everything all right? Why did this madman come to you?” “You know the man and the sort of things he says,” Jehu replied.

12.  Job 9:21 “Although I am blameless, I have no concern for myself; I despise my own life.

13.  Job 19:13 “He has alienated my brothers from me; my acquaintances are completely estranged from me

14.  Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

15.  Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

16.  Proverbs 27:23 Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds;

17.  Psalm 18:43 You have delivered me from the attacks of the people; you have made me the head of nations; people I did not know are subject to me.

18.  Jeremiah 9:16 I will scatter them among nations that neither they nor their fathers have known, and I will pursue them with the sword until I have destroyed them.”

19.  Ezekiel 28:19 All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.’”

Man “Knowing” God / Man “Knowing” gods

1.     Exodus 5:2 Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go.”

2.     Deuteronomy 11:28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known.

3.     Deuteronomy 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,”

4.     Deuteronomy 13:6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known,

5.     Deuteronomy 13:13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known),

6.     Deuteronomy 28:64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods– gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

7.     Deuteronomy 29:26 They went off and worshiped other gods and bowed down to them, gods they did not know, gods he had not given them.

8.     Deuteronomy 32:17 They sacrificed to demons, which are not God– gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear.

9.     Judges 2:10 After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the LORD nor what he had done for Israel.

10.  1 Samuel 2:12 Eli’s sons were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD.

11.  1 Samuel 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD: The word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.

12.  2 Samuel 3:25 You know Abner son of Ner; he came to deceive you and observe your movements and find out everything you are doing.”

13.  1 Kings 8:43 then hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name.

14.  1 Chronicles 28:9 “And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.

15.  Job 18:21 Surely such is the dwelling of an evil man; such is the place of one who knows not God.”

16.  Job 24:1 “Why does the Almighty not set times for judgment? Why must those who know him look in vain for such days?

17.  Psalm 36:10 Continue your love to those who know you, your righteousness to the upright in heart.

18.  Psalm 79:6 Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the kingdoms that do not call on your name;

19.  Psalm 87:4 “I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me– Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush–and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’”

20.  Psalm 91:14 “Because he loves me,” says the LORD, “I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

21.  Proverbs 3:6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

22.  Isaiah 1:3 The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.”

23.  Isaiah 19:21 So the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the LORD. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the LORD and keep them.

24.  Isaiah 45:4 For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me.

25.  Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

26.  Isaiah 52:6 Therefore my people will know my name; therefore in that day they will know that it is I who foretold it. Yes, it is I.”

27.  Jeremiah 2:8 The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols.

28.  Jeremiah 4:22 “My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good.”

29.  Jeremiah 7:9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, {9 Or and swear by false gods} burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known,

30.  Jeremiah 9:3 “They make ready their tongue like a bow, to shoot lies; it is not by truth that they triumph {3 Or lies; they are not valiant for truth} in the land. They go from one sin to another; they do not acknowledge me,” declares the LORD.

31.  Jeremiah 9:6 You {6 That is, Jeremiah (the Hebrew is singular)} live in the midst of deception; in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me,” declares the LORD.

32.  Jeremiah 9:24 but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD.

33.  Jeremiah 10:25 Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the peoples who do not call on your name. For they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him completely and destroyed his homeland.

34.  Jeremiah 22:16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the LORD.

35.  Jeremiah 24:7 I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.

36.  Jeremiah 31:34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

37.  Jeremiah 44:3 because of the evil they have done. They provoked me to anger by burning incense and by worshiping other gods that neither they nor you nor your fathers ever knew.

38.  Ezekiel 38:16 You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, O Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

39.  Hosea 2:20 I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.

40.  Hosea 4:1 Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: “There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.

41.  Hosea 5:4 “Their deeds do not permit them to return to their God. A spirit of prostitution is in their heart; they do not acknowledge the LORD.

42.  Hosea 6:3 Let us acknowledge the LORD; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth.”

43.  Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

44.  Hosea 13:4 “But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of {4 Or God ever since you were in} Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

God “Knowing” Man / God “Knowing” gods

1.     Genesis 18:19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

2.     Exodus 33:12 Moses said to the LORD, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. You have said, ‘I know you by name and you have found favor with me.’

3.     Deuteronomy 34:10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

4.     2 Samuel 7:20 “What more can David say to you? For you know your servant, O Sovereign LORD.

5.     1 Chronicles 17:18 “What more can David say to you for honoring your servant? For you know your servant,

6.     Psalm 138:6 Though the LORD is on high, he looks upon the lowly, but the proud he knows from afar.

7.     Psalm 139:1 For the director of music. Of David. A psalm. O LORD, you have searched me and you know me.

8.     Psalm 144:3 O LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?

9.     Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

10.  Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I chose you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

11.  Jeremiah 12:3 Yet you know me, O LORD; you see me and test my thoughts about you. Drag them off like sheep to be butchered! Set them apart for the day of slaughter!

12.  Hosea 13:5 I cared for you in the desert, in the land of burning heat.

13.  Amos 3:2 “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”

14.  Nahum 1:7 The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him,

[2] Heb. 13:8 (NIV)

[3] T. Fretheim, “[d:y,” NIDOT 2:410.  Also see W. Schottroff, “[d:y,” TLOT 2:511.

[4] This concept is expressed in Fretheim, NIDOT 2:410 and by R. Dentan in The Knowledge of God in Ancient Israel, (New York: Seabury Press, 1968), 38-41. See also G. Botterwick and Bergman, “[d:y,” TDOT 2:514.

[5] Dentan, The Knowledge of God, 36.  To Denton at least, “knowing” in a holistic sense can be seen in ancient literature other than the Bible – Homer and the Gilgamesh Epic are cited.  The concept of “knowing” in these works is devoid of a scientific and analytical perspective in its definition or presentation.  Although refreshing (and not dry) to him, it is unclear whether or not this perspective is seen as ignorant.  C.S. Lewis seems to see the spiritual benefit of a holistic understanding in a similar fashion involving “knowing” the nature of man over and above a purely scientific and medical understanding in Pilgrim’s Regress (London: Geoffrey Bles Ltd., 1933; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 2000), 61-62.

[6] P.R.G.,“[d:y,” TWOT 1:366.

[7] This list is taken from Fretheim, “[d:y,” NIDOTTE 2:410-411.

[8] Schottroff, TLOT 2:514.

[9] Prichard, James ANET p.95a.

[10] Botterwick, “[d:y,” TDOT, 5:454-55.

[11] Botterwick, TDOT 5:459.

[12] This similarity is noted by Kiel and Delitizsch in Psalms (Vol. 5 of Commentary on the Old Testament; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866-9; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 577.

[13] In Isaiah 1:3, yāda‘ can also be used to refer to an animal knowing a man. “An ox knows its buyer;” (WhnEqo rAv [d:y")

[14] J. A. Knudtzon, Die El Amarna Tafeln in Hinrich’s Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, II (Lepzig, 1907-9), No. 60, 30-32.

[15] Ibid. 2:1420f.  Huffmon sees these uses as being a specialized use of “to know” in treaty terminology that refers an appeal to be recognized as a legal vassal in order to receive the benefits of that status, “The Treaty Background of Yāda‘” BASOR 181 (1966): 31-33.

[16] Botterwick, TDOT 5:461.

[17] rḫ used to refer to sexual intimacy can be found in a hymn to Min from Edfu: E. Chassinat, Le Temple of Edfou, II (Cairo, 1938), 390f.

[18] For more detail of sexual euphuisms in Akkadian using e/idû see: B. Landsberger MAOG 4 (1928/9): 321.

[19] yd’ can be used in the sexual sense: “Ba’al surrounded Anat and “knew” (yd’) her; she became pregnant and gave birth.” H. Cazelles, “L’hymne ugaritique a Anat,” Syr, 33 (1956): 52, 55f.

[20] Schottroff makes this same observation, TLOT 2:515 as does Botterwick, TDOT 5:464.

[21] Thompson argues that “those who know the law” are probably Levites like the priests. Jeremiah, 168.

[22] McKenzie takes this point of view of knowing God – “the knowledge of God” means not just information but knowledge and practice of Hebrew morality J. L. MCKenzie, “The Appellative Use of El and Elohim,” CBQ 10 (1984): 170-181.  Wolff also alludes to this meaning that includes a combination of knowledge and practice ThB 22 (1973): 182-205.  Thompson also stresses that knowing God in this passage includes a volitional and relationship aspect, Jeremiah, 168-169.

[23] Some scholars feel that “knowing” god in these passages is a statement of covenant disloyalty to God rather than a statement of the lack of an active knowledge of him.  See Huffmon. “Yada,” 31-37 and Holliday’s treatment of the subject, Jeremiah (ed by P. Hanson. Philadelpha: Fortress Press, 1986), 1:33.  However, others disagree: see Botterweck, TDOT 5:478.

[24] Some scholars feel that “knowing” god means an intimate personal relationship based on the use of yāda‘ meaning sexual intimacy (see R. Denton, Knowledge, 38 and Holliday, Jeremiah, 1:33.)  However, it seems wrong to understand the meaning of a word from another euphemistic form.

[25] J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 581.

[26] Bright defines “knowing” in Jeremiah 31:34 as being aware of God’s commands and living accordingly although there is no room for the relational aspect of “knowing” This seems odd to divorce God’s laws from a relational “knowing” which has not been found to be the case in all other known instances of a person or group of people “knowing” God.  The phrase “the knowledge of God” has been used for such purposes.  J. Bright, “An Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31-34,” Interpretation, 20 (1966): 195.

[27] For theories that “knowing” is a treaty term, see Katho, “The New Covenant and the Challenge of Building a New and Transformed Community in D.R. Congo,” OTE 18 (2005): 118.  Also see Huffmon, “Yada,” 36.

[28] Keown, Scalise, and Smothers see not “knowing” God as a sin. Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC 27; Dallas: Word Books),  134.

[29] This position stands in opposition to a majority of scholarly opinion. J. A. Mackay sees this new “knowing” as being a deficiency that God fixes in his people, Jeremiah (Mentor Series; Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2004), 1:237. See also: W. Lemke, “Jeremiah 31:31-34,” Interpretation, 37 (1983): 186., Keown, Jeremiah, 134, and others.

[30] See passages in the prophets where God is critical of the nation of Israel or Judah and its leaders for not “knowing” him, a surprising statement to some who probably assumed that they did: Isa 45:4, Jer 2:8, 4:22, 9:3, 9:6, Hosea 4:1, 5:4, 6:6.  Support for the theory of the nation of Israel not “knowing” God as a criticism or clarification in Jeremiah and Hosea, see J. Dearman The Book of Hosea (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 174.

[31] Isaiah says of the righteous person, “God instructs him and teaches him the right way.” (Isa 28:26).  “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.” (Isa 48:17).  “Many peoples will come and say ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord… He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths (Isa 2:3, Mic 4:2).  Also see Psalm 119.

[32] Isaiah 56:3, 6 seems to imply the inclusion of foreigners (non-Israelites) who are dedicated to God in his plans. It would be sensible to believe that his interest in foreigners who knew him within the current covenant would have a place in the new one as well.  This may also be inferred from Abraham’s initial blessing from God that “all peoples” would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:1-3).

http://owlcityblog.com/2010/09/06/you-had-me-at-hello/

Listen to the song “Fireflies” here (Thanks Grooveshark!):

I love books, movies, and video games about important people – people who are talented, famous, brave, and selfless – people who make a big difference in the world around them for good.  Whether I’m reading Ursula LeGuin, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, or the Bible, or playing Fable, Final Fantasy, or Star Wars (Knights of the Old Republic), I’m somehow taking part in a story where the main character rises to greatness to save their world and make a difference for good.

Here’s my problem: Looking at how my life is going, I don’t think I’ll ever live up to any person in those stories I like.  It doesn’t look like I’m ever going to be a talented, gifted, or famous person. I don’t think I’ll ever have a chance to do something incredibly important or really good (in a big way) in the world. 

So after coming to this realization, I began to seek out people I though were making a big difference in the world and talk to them.  The funny thing was they didn’t think they were doing something really important, and what they were doing that I though was important didn’t seem to make them happier or feel more special or different from the rest of us.  Some regretted the steps it took to be what I considered important, and envied me (a plain old average person!)  Some of them told me God was against some of their more ambitious plans for greatness in ministry or in God’s kingdom.

What did William Wallace really want before he was forced to take up his sword and liberate Scotland?  What did Maximus really want before he overthrew the corrupt Emperor Commodus?  They just wanted to live a normal life – tend a farm, raise a family, love their wife.  What did Jeremiah want?  Probably just a normal life like anyone else – get married, get a job, etc.  All these men, (whether fictitious or real) seemed to have their opportunity for greatness thrust upon them, or in other words, God himself rose them up for the task.  Did they deserve it?  Probably not, especially in Jeremiah’s case — who was called before he was even born to prove if he was worthy of being a prophet of God.  Are they special to God?  The modern-day versions I talked to don’t feel special at all.

I would say that they are no more special than the rest of us – the average people.  The only difference is that they are here to serve… us.  The great people we admire throughout history who did great things, saved many people, etc. were here to serve the average person.  The butler and the maid serves the master of the house, the hero, the warrior, the king, the leader serves… the average person. It seems that their calling has not so much to do with their choice then with God’s choice.  Without deserving it, it is thrust upon them.

God raised up prophets and kings – not for the purpose of glorifying them, but to serve the most important target audience – his people.  Us.  The average person.  The person who does their unimportant job every day, goes home, spends some time with their average family, and then goes to their average bed.  In the morning, they wake up to another average day with average goals. There is no giant to slay, no kingdom to fight, no great battle to plan or great enemy to slay.  They don’t save the world, they aren’t legendary heroes, just normal average people. When they die, they will be forgotten and will not be written of in the history books or talked about with awe in classrooms.

Yet to God, these are they very people who are the most important.  The leaders and the heroes are only important because they are part of God’s people too.  Elijah, one of God’s greatest prophets lived, with a widow and her son.   God chose a shepherd boy (the youngest in his unimportant family in an unimportant tribe) to be the leader of his people.  He was to be a great king for the purpose to lead God’s people.

In some ways similar to the greatest of human heroes and leaders, God himself is a servant of his people – always looking out for us, rescuing us, loving us.  He loved the common person so much, he became human himself, took average men and women for friends, and died horribly for us so we might know him.  So much pain, so much planning, so may centuries of frustration and fighting.  Why?  He did it for us.

This is our glory, the glory of the average person.

Six years later in January of 2010, another devastating earthquake hit a small town 16 miles away from the heavily populated city of Port-au-Prince, the capital city of Haiti.  The quake measured 7.0 on the Richter scale, and the death toll according to the Haitian government was 230,000 with 300,000 injured and 1,000,000 left homeless.

No more than a month later, an even more severe earthquake measuring 8.8 on the Richter scale hit off the coast of the Maule region of Chili, devastating coastal towns thought the region. Although the death toll was not as high as the Asian tsunami or the Haitian earthquakes, local news services at the time reported that more than 1.5 million people had been displaced.

This was not the first time such visceral evil and suffering had jarred the minds and hearts of people in this decade.  From an American perspective, the beginning of this century was marred by a horrifying display of terrorism as the infamous events of 9/11 flashed before our eyes on television and computer screens across the world.  People all over the country, unaccustomed to violence so immanent in their lives, sought to find answers and consolation.  How could this kind of evil have happened to our country?  Some people turned to religion to answer questions.  Church attendance grew for a time.

However, the Tsunami of 2004 awoke in men and women of this generation the realization of a different kind of evil – one that could not be blamed on men, but on whimsical natural forces of the earth.  No longer could the senseless violence and the deaths of thousands be blamed on moral agents as we had been culturally accustomed to thinking about evil over the last 3 years, but was instead the fault of an “act of God.”  A discomfort with religion and its attempts to explain such suffering began to emerge.  Both the atheist and the theist could see a common enemy behind the 9/11 attacks, but with the horrors of a natural disaster now in the forefront, the national and international religious communities began to struggle with answers for questions they were not used to addressing.

In some cases, Christians and religious leaders could not digest the events of the Tsunami or other instances of natural evil without readjusting their views of the goodness or power of God.[2] Outspoken atheists seemed to find real proof that the claim of the Christian God being all-powerful and loving was illogical.[3] Outspoken Christians unconcerned with correlating these events with God’s character were quick to see them instead as being a righteous judgment against people who deserved it.  Others saw it as an act of God that was in some way beneficial to the human race or more specifically to enlightened Christians.  As it turned out, there were a lot of bad explanations for the reasons behind these terrible disasters, but there was an absence of any good ones.  Why would God allow such devastation?  Many more thoughtful and rational religious thinkers agreed: there was no answer.[4]

The Need to Discuss the Unanswerable: Towards a Theology of Meaning

Regardless of the final conclusion that an answer to the problem of natural evil is impossible, there is still the need for dialog regarding corollary topics, such as God’s nature and the purpose of a human being.  To many who struggle with the reality of natural evil and believe God is good and all-powerful, this is a desirable and fruitful task, one where definitive clues can be found that will ignite our imagination.

We will first look at the struggles in answering this question by biblical authors and early church leaders.  In modern times beginning during the time of the Enlightenment, there has been an apparently inescapable trend to use discoveries and theories of science in this task.  With the emergence of Darwinism, the face of creation theology drastically changed.  Many within the Christian community up until the current day struggle to adopt the theories of naturalistic evolution at the expense of biblical inerrancy.  Some, however, do not and continue to have a rational perspective within the Christian scientific community.

A starting point for questions regarding natural evil would probably be one that looks to the creation of man and the physical world.  Why is our natural environment deadly or dangerous?  What happened in the history of God and his creation that made things the way they are?  A presupposition seems to lurk behind this question– that things are not what they are supposed to be.  It is one I believe haunts every person regardless of their worldview– a question so rooted in the mind of every man that it has become a common theme across myths in nearly every culture since the beginning of time.  This truth is not so much found within their content, but by the fact that we have myths at all– stories that try to explain deep questions that haunt the human existence.  It seems the primary goal of a good creation theology is to seek an explanation for why evil exists in the world today[5] when it is assumed that it should never have been there in the first place.  This is an important: it is not that our gut instinct tells us that things will be corrected by the universe some day, but that things ought to have been right all along.

But before looking for clues about natural evil from the events following creation, an even more fundamental examination must take place, one that is existential in nature.  It comes in the form of a grasping for meaning by those who face real tragedy and must come to grips with it.  Why does God not reveal apparently important things to us, especially things regarding experiences that have the potential to tax us emotionally and spiritually to the brink?  Why does God remain silent as to its meaning or ultimate purpose with us—with people whom he has a loving relationship? Didn’t he himself suffer on Earth with clear purpose?  Shouldn’t we likewise be knowledgeable of the reasons behind our portion?

Behind these questions lie ones even more primary in nature: why do we seek so strongly to find meaning in our lives, especially in the arena of suffering and pain?[6] Why is the natural inclination of men to seek meaning in their suffering when other valid, albeit less acceptable explanations, exist which we at times are all too eager to offer up when consoling others?  Is a desire to find meaning in suffering a selfish one?  It seems a corollary area of study alongside the study of suffering would be something akin to a theology of meaning.  It cannot be stressed enough how important it is to understand this primary motivation for seeking answers about evil.  If we do not start our inquiry here, we will not solve the problem at its source.  Theodicies constructed in this fashion are like pain killers taken without tracing the source of the pain.  All theodicies and explanations for evil in the world stem from this desire: to find meaning behind why we suffer.

Is it possible the desire for meaning is similar in nature to the desire for God?  It is one that is seduced by a thousand false alternatives: a good job or perfect marriage; to achieve them is to experience disappointment if what we desired in their consummation could not be found in them.[7] As Augustine is so often quoted, “Thou hast created us for Thyself, and our heart is not quiet until it rests in Thee.”[8] Maybe similar also is the nature of the multiple dimensions of love.  According to C.S. Lewis[9] who was likely influenced by Platonism[10], the lower levels of love, such as eros, seem to have been designed not as the ultimate fulfillment of relational desire, but as gateways into a selfless realm.  Even more so they are pointers or signposts: that once experienced with an excessive expectation beyond its intended design, leads to disappointment that painfully but thankfully points us to something greater—ultimately culminating in a sincere adoption of a selfless, agape love.  Eros can best be experienced when it is enjoyed within its designed sphere just like a good job can be best experienced if our hearts have found God and so its desire is regulated to something more appropriate than one that only a relationship with God could fulfill.

Does the desire for meaning follow a similar pattern?  In our suffering, we find ourselves in a position to strongly desire meaning to explain it.  Pat answers will not suffice because our pain demands truth, and our selfishness which is normally an enemy in intellectual thought naturally steering us towards self-centered answers becomes instead an ally.  In our desire to find meaning, we may in some circumstances find answers on a factual level that nonetheless remain unsatisfactory: we were robbed because the criminal was a drug addict in desperate need of money and not in his right mind.  Although we may see beneficial outcomes, such as a newfound knowledge in how to add more security to our house and keep our family safe, we will often take the search for meaning to the next level because the first one proved unsatisfactory– to inquire of the governing bodies of the universe as to why such an event was meaningful in our lives.

Maybe we are told that an idea or force, such as karma, is responsible, or that innocent suffering is needed for the benefit of the cosmos in some mystical way.   Another answer is that the ultimate purpose of evil in our lives is for our learning benefit. It seems in my experience however that ideas, no matter how well constructed, objectively true, or strongly believed, seem inadequate to satiate the desire for meaning.  They feel to me to be a secondary product of a more primary source; the explanations of the rational minds of men to explain the indirect workings of a more primary governor of reality.   Ideas and explanations will never satisfy a desire to find meaning; only an audience and a relationship with the Creator of all reality will.[11]

This is an important point: it is an interactive relationship with God, not an idea of God that contains the satiation for our desire for meaning.  The divine relationship satisfies our desire for meaning like food satisfies our hunger, not pictures of food or the concept of food.  The idea that God exists and has all the attributes of classical theism is not the object of meaning’s satisfaction because the idea of an all powerful God is still that—an idea. This is why deistic forms of Christianity fail to provide answers to the problem of evil.  If we encounter God, the Creator of the universe, and we are told categorically that he loves us and that he is in control in convincing ways, is that not the very end result of our desire for meaning? Now the lower levels can be comprehended because they have a satisfactory context or framework with which to extract meaning from.  Returning to our earlier event of theft, the factual evidence of the situation is now more satisfactory because it is understood in its proper context (that it only provides a lesser level of meaning but is missing the ultimate context): The criminal who robbed me was desperate for money, but God loves me (and the thief!) and is ultimately in control of all things, which he often reminds me when I talk with him.

The deeper hearts of men are not fooled: a driving force or an idea can never be other than a secondary product of a more primary source. Do not the ideals of love, charity, and selflessness become more comprehensible and livable once we are in a relationship with the Creator?  Instead of a wooden application of them, a deeper, more enjoyable adherence to them is possible because their importance and meaning to our lives is understood in the context of their Creator.  This perspective may give some insight into explaining the rationality of Christian theism in light of criticism based on the Platonic Euthyphro dilemma.[12]

And so it was with Job.  Job received what he needed most: an audience with God himself.  Without the divine relationship, the ultimate consummation of our desire for meaning, how could the lesser levels of meaning be understood with satisfaction?  If, theoretically, Job was told about the heavenly meetings between God and Satan by one of the bene Eloheim, the Sons of God of the heavenly court observing the story from both realms, he might not have been satisfied.  He might have been even more confused and possibly more angry or in greater despair.  If he were told possible ideas behind God’s reasons, such as God wanting to make an example of his life to tell the world a new truth, he would not have been satisfied either.  Truth and ideas, no matter how good, would seem sour in the faces of his dead children.

We are never told about God and Job’s later interactions.  If our model is somewhat correct, we could tentatively say that with their relationship intact, God could reveal the lower levels of meaning regarding Job’s plight.  Maybe God only revealed those details to a glorified Job, whose mind and heart could only then comprehend its purposes.  In the end, it seems ideals are mapped to a relational person who embodies them, and it is that Person who gives them intrinsic meaning in a waterfall-like process.  This can be seen in a lesser degree by the person of King David, who represented God’s ideals, and who men respected a great deal and would die for, and who in some way inspired those ideals to be upheld by his people with more force than if David never were.  This may be another facet of the way we were intended to be as made in the image of God.

Unlike the similar model of the dimensions of love which seems to follow an upward experiential path from eros to agape, it seems the path of meaning must ideally take a top-down experiential path even though its arrival at the top came from questions from below.  A relationship with God is required for adequate satisfaction to be found at lower levels.  However, like love, agape transcends all lower forms, and similarly, a relationship with God transcends the need to comprehend meaning at lower levels.  Even though Job may never have understood why such suffering occurred in his life during his time on earth, his relationship with God satisfied him.

Perhaps this theory of meaning has links to other theological thought.  Anselm of Canterbury proposed that all Christian doctrine and by extension, all knowledge and meaning about our experiences in our life, require a relationship with God as a starting point:  “Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand.[13]”

So returning to our current discussion on natural evil, we can say that a desire to find meaning in suffering was intended to lead the suffering person ultimately to a relationship with God to find satisfaction in our desire for meaning in the events of our lives now understood in their proper context.  It is not the purpose of suffering that leads us to God, but the outcome of a desire to find meaning behind it, of which suffering is only one manifestation among an infinite number we find in our earthly experiences.  As was mentioned before, according to C.S. Lewis observations of joy in our lives may lead us down a similar path.  Pain does have the advantage– of being the impetuous for a search for meaning not idly undertaken in one’s spare time, but rather pursued with great desperation and awareness of potential damage to our spirits if unsuccessful.

Again, this is not unlike a man’s sexual desire leading him to fall in love, marry, and ultimately selflessly care for the well being of other human being (his wife).  In the context of the higher agape (selfless) love, eros (romantic love) is more enjoyed because it is relieved of the burden of excessive importance attached to it that only a participation in agape could satisfy.

The remainder of this paper will seek to wade through these lower levels of meaning for clues and glimpses of answers behind why we suffer though the hands of the natural world.  Clues are however all we will receive in this lifetime as to the ultimate meaning behind why we suffer.  Until then, we have what we most desperately need in full measure– a relationship with our Creator.

The Early Church Response and Modern Revisions

During the first centuries of the Christian church, there emerged two prevailing models for creation and the fall that dealt with theodicies regarding natural evil – Irenean and Augustianian.[14]

The Ireanean Model

The Ireanean model, championed and revised in modern times by John Hick[15], and Richard Swineburne[16] sees the fall as part of an overall process of unfinished creation that ultimately leads to salvation and fulfillment at the end of time.  The fall of man and the ushering in of a dangerous world rife with suffering because of its chaotic incompleteness has always been an integral part of this overall rocky but creative process.  Natural evil is not really “evil,” and the fall never really was a true “fall,” and creation has not yet been completed.  God declaring his creation good really meant ‘good’ in a potential sense and in no way a literal one.  From suffering in the natural world we learn to become more mature in our spiritual walk with God and learn to distinguish between right and wrong because of the pain that occurs (natural evil) when a wrong choice is made.

To myself and many others, to be told that the deaths and suffering of untold thousands due to earthquakes is not really tragic and must be thought of instead as a stepping stone towards helping spiritual people become more spiritual seems outrageous and wrong.[17] It doesn’t work well on the micro-scale of physical suffering in the life of an individual either.  Is this a realistic avenue to take– to tell a person who lives with severe pain or suffers from a ravaging disease such as cancer that their perception of this is misguided and should really not be seen as suffering or evil at all, but simply the remnants of an unfinished creation that’s really for our benefit?  Such a theodicy is ripe for attack, one that happened quite scathingly during the post-Christian time and culture of the Enlightenment by Voltaire[18] and later completely decimated by Dostoevsky in his nearly canonized literary work on the topic of suffering in The Brothers Karamazov[19].

I think C.S. Lewis’ theory on desire mentioned earlier can be once again called upon to critique this view.  In a chapter entitled “Hope” in Mere Christianity[20], Lewis puts forth a theory that our desire for something points to the existence of an object of its satiation.  He uses this concept to induce that because we are left wanting in our experiences on earth, it can be logically induced that our hearts long for a place that cannot be found in this world: our hearts long for heaven.  He seems to be using an inductive ontological argument, one similarly set forth by Anselm of Canterbury (although it was more deductive in nature) that our thoughts about God prove his existence.[21] In regards to our current purposes, it seem logical to believe that our intuition telling us that something is wrong with the physical world arises from some innate and a priori concept that we as humans were supposed to live in harmony with our creation which in turn leads one to induce an existence of a primordial reality that was somehow lost.[22]

The world as we see it is not as it should be, nor is it in the process of becoming something greater in some grand process where evil is necessary to create more chances for good to do its balancing magic.  Even naturalistic evolutionists in the early parts of the 20^th century involved in direct observations of nature saw that they were wrong in the concept of beneficial progress in the natural world, a popular scientific perspective originating during the Enlightenment known as evolutionary idealism.[23] Since popular natural theology at the time had become wedded to the evolutionary principles of natural law, it found itself outdated as well.[24] Even worse for theologians was a distancing from this concept by churches throughout Britain– one that the sinfulness and alienation of man was incompatible with the idea of progress on any level, natural or spiritual.[25]

If mankind shows no spiritual progress and science observes no naturalistic progress in creation, we are left to wonder why a theology of progressive creation is any longer a rational one.  Nonetheless, evangelical attempts have been made recently to use it as a middle ground between the scientifically untenable theology of recent creationism and a biblically incoherent theology of theistic evolution and seem to have met with some limited success.[26]

Neo-orthodox[27] attempts have been made more recently that find scientific trends and theories useful in understanding the “un-created” elements in nature that are progressing towards order.  The most notable of these attempts has been made by Sjoerd L. Bonting in Creation and Double Chaos.  Bonting appears to revive the paganistic notions of a primordial material substance that is unordered or “chaotic” that existed before God created the universe that he used as raw material, but decided to leave creation half-complete: the source of evil in the natural world today is the result of unordered primordial material co-existing with God’s ordered material that results in disease, earthquakes, and other natural defective phenomena.  He further sees God’s progressive creative involvement occurring within the workings of chaos theory, where God is able to move the direction of the natural world in progressive steps by nudging the natural outcome of cause and effect processes found in the natural world at the point where they become chaotic (or unpredictable) so as not to be detected as interfering.  This is possible because according to chaos theory, at the point where the direction a natural processes can take can be no longer be predicted, a decision to go in either of two or more directions (such as in weather prediction) cannot be differentiated from each other because they all share the same level of energy spent to take any choice, and thus not interfering with the natural laws of thermodynamics.[28]

This seems to hold some substantial value in explaining how God might work undetected in nature and in human enterprise to the unspiritual eye to guide history and events without spoiling ability of men to retain their free will.  However, his thoughts on primordial matter and a refutation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) to explain natural and moral evil and appease the naturalistic mind comes at a too great a cost: polytheistic primordial material must be adopted with all the problems that come along with it that world view as well as a departure from biblical inerrancy, a common aspect and lethal weakness of Neo-orthodoxy.

The Augustinian Model

We now move to a model of early church creation theology and its treatment of natural evil as a direct result of the sin of Adam and Eve, one that was shared in various ways by four notable church fathers: Theophilus of Antioch (115-185), Origen Adamantius (185–254), Augustine of Hippo (354 –430), and Maximus the Confessor (580-662).

Theophilus argued that God made creation perfect at the beginning, but evil entered the natural world when Adam fell.  “For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him” because as a corrupt master tends to corrupt his servants, ‘He [man] being master, all that was subject with him sinned with him.’[29] Fallen spiritual authority corrupts the morality and harmony of all under its supervision.  A modern interpretation of this approach by Peter Kreeft speaks of a power to bring divine harmony to the physical world (both our physical bodies and the whole of nature) is a delegated one: only available if God’s authority is acknowledged within the context of a relationship. If it is rejected, humanity can no longer bring harmony into the world: “If you rebel against the king, the ministers are no longer able to server you.”[30]

Origen diverged significantly from Theophilus—he believed that the physical world was created as a kind of purgatory to mitigate the effects of sin on a spiritually fallen humanity.  A world full of difficulties and pain was intentionally designed to create in men moral and spiritual character through suffering.  Besides this deliberate design, creation’s evil state was also meant to communicate to the human race in a symbolic fashion the spiritual reality of the fall– disharmony with God and man’s choice to descend into sin.[31] It is easy to see that this perspective does not jive well with God declaring his creation “good” before the fall, and also runs the risk being understood as a salvific system where Christ’s redemptive death seems to be delegated to a less important or even unnecessary role.

The Augustinian approach follows Theophilus’ belief in an original good creation that somehow fell as a result of Adam’s sin.  However, as pointed out by H. Paul Santmire of his creation theology, nature in general is beautiful and did not fall in the same sense that either Origen or Theophilus seemed to hold.[32] The connection between nature falling to some degree and man’s initial sinning is seen as being a punishment, derived from the Genesis account of God making childbirth painful and cursing the ground to make growing food a difficult experience.  If this idyllic view of creation was indeed held by Augustine as Santmire suggests, Augustine would see people who perceive nature as destructive and evil because of personal experience and pain as suffering from a bad perspective or insensitivity to spiritual realities, and this seems problematic.[33] If Augustine were put in the shoes of Voltaire or a resident of Haiti in recent times, he might have struggled to make sense of things in light of his overly idealistic view of nature.  While on one hand nature is undoubtedly beautiful and majestic, a balanced perspective would admit it is presently in some kind of chaotic and degenerate state.[34]

While the Augustinian model seems more plausible because it doesn’t ignore an essential part of the Genesis account that something went wrong which wasn’t supposed to, its uniquely Augustianian inclusion of the punishment aspect presents troubling difficulties.  The main difficulty it faces is the glaring inconstancy of an ongoing punishment against both man and beast for a sin they never committed with God’s revealed sense of justice:  “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” (Deut. 24:16).  Can we truly say that the death of thousands of young children in the Asian Tsunami is really because of Adam’s sin of disobeying God and eating from the forbidden tree?  It also seems odd to see a natural world filled with predation, waste, and wonton self-destruction, one that is in some ways independent of man’s involvement at all, a strange punishment indeed.  If mankind is being punished for something they didn’t do, how much more strange is it that all of nature suffers separate from man to its own hurt?  There logically must be more going on than mere punishment.

The alternative to a punishment aspect of natural evil and the fallen state of man is offered up by Pelagius (c. 360 to 435)[35] and in more refined discussions in the writings of Justin Martyr and Taitian.[36] Men die because they follow Adam’s example in that they share the same selfish nature that Adam had with its propensity for sin.  This is not to be understood at all that humanity can attain perfection, God’s grace is required to counteract man’s inevitable descent into their sinful nature. The fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil held no spiritual poison, but was a fruit whose consumption made the eater aware of their disobedience of God and their desire to become free from him.  To eat it brought the realization of separation and independence.

Maximus the Confessor introduced the idea of man being a mediator between the natural world and the spiritual one because in his nature their existed both dimensions.  When man fell, the physical world was made subject to death and chaos because he was no longer able to carry out his ability to create or sustain divine harmony within it.[37]

S.E. Alsford seems to build off of an Augustinian understanding of creation but with a twist that seems Maximusian– that the curse was somehow created by a harmonious break-down between man and creation in a mystical/spiritual sense because of man’s embracing of evil.  How spiritual evil leads to degeneration in nature could be similar to how our spiritual and emotional tenor has significant bearing on our physical well being.  If the human body can be taken as a microcosm of this reality, it can be used as a model in our world in a macrocosmic sense between a fallen spiritual and emotional mankind in a corporate sense and an affective natural world.[38] Although the workings of this interchange are unknown and mystical, we have full proof that it does in fact exist: ulcers, headaches and all–the spiritual world has an observable effect on the physical one, and vice-versa.

The Christian Scientific Answer

Most 21^st century extensions of the Augustinian model of creation and the existence of natural evil have been initiated by Christian scientists who believe that Creation has not fallen at all.  Either it is orderly and beautiful, its negative aspects are only in the eye of the beholder (read that as to the un-scientific observer), or had already fallen and was intended to be redeemed by man before his creation.  In most instances, man is no more than the product of millions of years of evolution to a point where God imbues a spirit into a randomly chosen primate (homo sapian to homo divinus).  Nearly all surveyed, which includes John Polkinghorne[39], R.J. Berry[40], Holmes Rolston, III[41], John J. Bimpson[42], Gavin McGrath[43] or John C. Mundy Jr.[44] fall into this category.  P.G. Nelson stands in the minority from the Christian-scientific world in thinking that a rosy picture of the nature should not be our final answer to the non-Christian world.[45] R.J. Berry seems also to allude to this in some of his writings.[46] Are we really going to tell the world “It’s not as bad as you think” when questioned about the Asian Tsunami or the Hatian Earthquake?  Is naturalistic evolution really going to sooth the pain of a spouse lost to cancer?  Do people go to science to find meaning in their lives?  When the question comes into the Christian court, are we really just going to throw the ball back to naturalistic evolution and biology?  Thankfully, a few scientist theologians (namely R.J. Berry) still hold to a fallen natural world not caused by the fall, but possibly caused by demons wreaking havoc on the animal and plant world before the fall or creation of man ever occurred.

Overall, it seems Nelson is correct– in our efforts to reconcile scientific theories de jour with our theology, we seem to fall terribly short in our ability to answer the existential personal problems that arise from natural suffering. We are left with a diminished view of scripture, are still unable to answer the criticisms of Voltaire and Dostoevsky, and have not smoothed the way at all for the atheist scientific community to venture into the realms of Christianity who see this ‘groping for science’ as a way to legitimize a long-failed belief system.  What is desperately needed, but what science-based theologians are reluctant to promote, is a relationship with Christ, in whom and through whom we can ultimately find meaning in the suffering our lives.

The Christian who wades too deeply in evolutionary science to explain the problem of evil will find solutions that mimic naturalistic evolution, absent of clues of meaning to the problem of suffering.  The scientific age has not proven kind to those who thirst for meaning in their world, and it seems the average Christian scientist has inadvertently hurt their own cause to uphold their beliefs in a modern age.

Modern Theology & Natural Evil

After our quick survey of Early Christian thought in the areas of creation theology and natural evil, it seems we have uncovered some positive clues towards reasons for nature’s fall into the state we see it in today. It isn’t surprising however, to see the trend in modern times to sacrifice scriptural inerrancy to fit into the mold of the latest scientific theories or to stop believing in one or more of the qualities of God of classical theism (All-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good) to help explain why evil exists.  Our quick look at modern theology will not include secular or neo-orthodox perspectives that espouse this kind of thinking. What is left appears to be scattered clues remaining from the aftermath of continuous battles between Reformed and Evangelical perspectives.

Divine Providence Regarding Natural Evil

In nearly all debates we find the definition and scope of the sovereignty of God and its implication in evil in the world.  The Reformed position blames all evil events on God, and a more evangelical one sees God as permitting evil to occur against his desired will within the natural word.  His sovereignty and providence transcend nature, unaffected by the cause and effect events of the natural world: that all people who freely want to find him will be drawn to him and saved.  According to David Bently Hart, understanding providence makes a huge difference in the character of God:

“Whether one says that God has eternally willed the history of sin and death, and all that comes to pass therein, as the proper or necessary means of achieving his ends, or whether one says instead that God has willed his good in creatures from eternity and will bring it to pass, despite their rebellion, by so ordering all things towards his goodness that even evil (which he does not cause) becomes an occasion of the operations of grace.  And it is only the latter view that can be called a doctrine of “providence” in the properly theological sense; the former view is mere determinism.”[47]

According to Hart, the entire history of sin and death is ultimately a contingency operation; one that is not desired by God, but nonetheless is constrained by his transcendent purposes to draw men and women who truly and freely desire him to himself for all eternity.  Even suffering and death are subjected to that ultimate providential purpose.  Ronald L. Hall also notes that there is a distinct difference between immanent intention and ultimate responsibility that is helpful at this point.[48]

The Purpose of Suffering

The determinist Reformed position, as well as that of classical theodicies, believe that God needs and approves of evil and suffering as being integral parts of bringing about his Kingdom and renewing the world at the end of time.  This is often concluded by observing the beneficial effects of suffering: evil men are killed in natural disasters, good men gain character and maturity though it, good and evil men alike are humbled by it.  To all observers, it can be a warning and a wake-up call.  The emotional shock of seeing others suffer so horribly leads us to consider our own mortality and our relationship with a higher power or reality.  Even Jesus makes this point when asked about the Tower of Siloam incident:

“…Those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them– do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?   I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:4-5).

What he does not say is that the deaths of those involved had purpose or meaning.  He explicitly denies it being a punishment.  As observers we ought to take stock of our own lives and our relationship with God rather than finding justification for our escape because we are somehow more righteous.  But this object lesson is not to be confused as being the purpose of the accident.[49] Hart is right that Jesus’ reply forever denies a causal link between tragedy and the sinfulness of those who suffer as a result.[50]

Innocent men who love God suffer, are tortured, and die.  If the purpose of suffering is neither for punishment nor a wake-up call to seek God, are any other purposes left that are legitimate?  It seems more likely that suffering has no ultimate purpose or meaning at all.[51] It is instead a contingent fixture of a chaotic natural world out of harmony with God and man and is now under the governance of malevolent or impersonal uncaring forces.

One final word about suffering from the hands of nature must be mentioned.  In the Old Testament, quite often we are told by the prophets that natural evils in Israel’s history (plagues, famines, droughts) are the result of restorative justice measures meted out according to the stipulations of God’s covenant as mentioned in Deut. 31.  This theocracy-based government was dissolved after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and will never be reinstated anywhere on Earth ever again.  We live in an age where the kingdom of God in its terrestrial manifestation has no land or country associated with it.  It would be wrong to associate God’s relationship with the nation of Israel with any nation or people group today.  A theocracy with divine supernatural rewards and punishments died with Israel.[52]

However, the world-wide flood of Genesis 6 stands outside the covenant with God and Israel and begs to be understood within the confines of the overall proposed argument.  The flood seems to me a readjustment step that marked a completion in creation.  The strange world of fallen man and bene Eloheim was spiraling out of control: the environment where a human being was supposed to be able to respond to God towards a love relationship was deteriorating to place where his (God’s) transcended purposes of good for all mankind were in jeopardy if left alone and required a single act of immanent re-adjustment, one which God said he would not repeat.

The Reality of Supernatural Evil

The reality of supernatural evil in the world is uncomfortable to Christians today.  This is probably a result of our coziness with a culturally pervasive atheistic scientism that denies the supernatural, but seems especially disgusted with what it perceives as the juvenile fear of a ‘boogeyman’ haunting humanity.  However, the biblical picture is strongly against such a perspective.   Hart brings up the oft-mentioned reality in the New Testament of the authority and activity of supernatural evil in all spheres of activity in the fallen world (Col. 1:16, 1^st Cor. 2:8, Eph 1:21, 3:10) and specifically of the devil as being the “prince” or even “god” of this world (Eph. 6:12, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 2^nd Cor 4:4 and 1^st John 5:19)[53] C.S. Lewis points to the possibility of a fallen angelic order corrupting nature before the introduction of man in The Problem of Pain.[54] Alvin Plantigua also postulates demons as possible (although unprovable) causes for natural disasters and other evils in nature.[55] Erwin Lutzer also gives this view credibility based on the events in Job, but is quick to assign ultimate immanent culpability to God.[56]

It is tempting and possibly legitimate in light of these insights to indulge in C.S. Lewis’ perspective of angelic stewardship over planets (in our analysis however, the physical world in general seems more appropriate) and their inhabitants in his fantasy Space Trilogy series.[57] It seems possible that a contingent of bene Elohiem (sons of God), an angelic class of intelligent and sentient created beings mentioned in both the pre-flood era and in the courts of heaven in Job, could have been assigned as stewards over the natural world.  Like mankind they were endowed with free will and fell away, thus enslaving and corrupting the created world entrusted to them; one that had initially been a harmonious system devoid of earthquakes, disease, or any of a myriad of disorders evident today.[58]

Conclusion

It was helpful for me to realize that in our search for answers to why we suffer at the hands of nature, a personal and interactive relationship with God is the only ultimate source and context for meaningful explanations at lower levels of facts and ideals.  With this orientation, theories on why we suffer or why nature fell can become reasonable and meaningful to ponder.

Our survey of Early Church thought on the subject of natural evil turned up a few possibilities of how and why creation fell, namely that there could exist links between the spiritual collective of mankind and the totality of nature as manifested in the microcosm of the human body—that there is a detectable link between consciousness and physiology, the spiritual and the physical dimensions of being.

Modern attempts by well-meaning Christian scientists trying to be theologians to answer the problem of natural evil seem to have taken a bad turn.  Too much emphasis has been made to shoehorn macro-evolution theory into creation theology to a point where biblical authenticity is called into question and exegesis of certain passages is stretched beyond its breaking point.   Polkinghorne’s smug insistence that scientists champion future attempts at natural theology[59] rather than theologians on the basis of constantly getting their science wrong is likewise guilty of getting his theological methodology wrong.  Nevertheless, some areas of interest, such as work done in chaos theory, may be helpful in understanding how God works undetected to the unspiritual eye in guiding creation and human enterprise in ways that suit his transcendent purposes without harm to the free will of mankind.

In modern theology that respects the inerrancy of the Bible, we find the tragic proliferation of Reformed theological perspectives occurring which continue to do excessive damage to the character of God in attempting to explain evil in the natural world on one hand, and makes the formulation of a sensitive answer to a suffering person impossible on the other.[60]

Thankfully more moderate evangelical approaches in recent years.  C.S. Lewis’ proposal of an angelic dominion on Earth that went awry before or after fall of man seems to hold the most promise in explaining why natural evil exists.  This allows suffering in nature to really be the effect of a morally evil agent, which can then be explained by more successful arguments found in the free will defense upheld in modernized versions by Alvin Plantagua and David Bently Hart.  I feel more comfortable with the concept of natural evil being the direct result of demonic manipulation or indirect result of their mismanagement, neglect, or corruption of the natural processes than a view of a mystical transference of the corrupted spiritual collective of mankind into the physical realities of nature.  Although still problematic, both views seem more rational than a total denial of any problem in nature that Augustine and the modern Christian scientific community seem to have.

To conclude on the subject of natural evil, it seems fitting to use Hart’s excellent summation:

“As for comfort, when we seek it, I can imagine none greater than the happy knowledge that when I see the death of a child, I do not see the face of God but of the enemy.”…  “God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history as false and damnable; he will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but strike off the fetters in which creations languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, he instead will raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes” and will say “Behold, I make all things new.”[61]

[2] One notable scholar is Bart Ehrman, who treats this subject extensively in his book Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer (New York: HarperCollins, 2009) and how it lead to his eventual agnostic worldview.  Tom Honey, a pastor of the Exeter Cathedral in Britain, shares of his struggle with his concept of God in the aftermath of the Tsunami that led him to take a panenthestic and limited view of God in a sermon he later preached.  “Tom Honey on God and the Tsunami,” n.p. [cited 5 May 2010]. Online: http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html.  Many more notable Christians began exploring panentheism as a sensible direction in creation theology only years earlier.  A summary of thinking in these directions is captured by a book of essays edited by John Polkinghorne: The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001).

[3] Gary Stern relates this perspective though interviews about natural disasters with notable atheist thinkers in Can God Intervene? How Religion Explains Natural Disasters (Westport, CT: Prager, 2007), 206-214.

[4] N.T. Wright in his book Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006) admits that the Bible contains no clear ultimate answers for the problem of evil, an instead he seeks a view of modeling God’s behavior in response to it – to eliminate its effects in our lives and in the world around us.  Stern in Can God Intervene, 86-105, interviews some Christians who do not attempt to answer the question at all, but instead focus on how to help.  Practical thinking without answering the question of what natural evil exists is explored by Diogenes Allen in “Suffering at the Hands of Nature” Theology Today 2 (1980): 183-191.

[5] This was a driving desire in Bonting’s formulation of chaos theology as an integral part of creation theology in Creation and Double Chaos: Science and Technology in Discussion (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 136. David Fergusson in The Cosmos and the Creator (London : SPCK, 1998), 78 sees taking evil into account as the most difficult task of in creation theology.

[6] The intersection of evil and a desire to find meaning in our lives is explored by J.G. Stackhouse in Can God Be Trusted?  Faith and the Challenge of Evil (2^nd ed.; Downes Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 59-61.

[7] In Surprised by Joy (London: Harcourt, 1955), C.S. Lewis sees this desire for God at first found in surprising moments or things that elicit a deep joy that once experienced leaves a person wanting more. They in turn lead to other experiences in life which in turn continues the search until they arrive at a relationship with God.  This is the central idea in Lewis’ autobiography: that pictures of the divine reside in things and experiences of everyday life that ultimately point to him.

[8] The statement comes from Augustine’s opening discussions in Confessions (I,i).

[9] C.S. Lewis gives this subject serious treatment in The Four Loves (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1960).

[10] This Platonic view of love is found in Plato’s dialogue The Symposium where Socrates is discussing the subject with others, and his speech begins in 201d where he quotes the philosophy of Diotima of Mantinea.

[11] This concept seems to be acknowledged by the downfall of the allegorical character of Virtue in C.S. Lewis’ Pilgrim’s Regress (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1933). To be virtuous for the sake of the ideal of virtue ultimately leads to a desire to understand why virtue is to be followed.  If there is no ultimate, conscious Creator who embodies virtue, we are left with no source of meaning for virtue and virtuous living, and thus begins our descent into nihilism.

[12] The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, where Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (10a)?  In other words, what comes first, moral goodness and truth that God lives by that are separate from himself, or a God who commands obedience to them because they are real in that they reflect his nature?  It is my proposal that moral truths and ideals ultimately do not contain sustainable weight and meaning without a relationship with the God in whom they are the ultimate embodiment of.

[13] This idea is part of Anselm’s discussion on a logical explanation of the existence of God via the ontological proof, or that the existence of God is implicated by the existence of the ideas we have about him, which would not exist if they had no bearing on reality, Proslogion, ii-iv.  Anselm, like C.S. Lewis, was heavily influenced by Platonic thought.  In Philosophy & The Christian Faith (London: Tyndale Press, 1968), Colin Brown who is taking his cue from Carl Barth’s commentary on Anselm, sees that Anselm is not looking at our ideas of the divine from a purely existential perspective, but rather from the framework of the mind of one who already believes in God and has received divine revelation though that relationship (p.22, notes).

[14] This category of models is introduced by S.E. Alsford in “Evil in the Non-Human World,” S&CB 3 (1991): 122.

[15]John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (London: Macmillian, 1977)  and also “An Irenean Theodicy” in Encountering Evil (New ed.; ed. S. Davis. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2001), 38-52.

[16] R. Swinburne, “The Problem of Evil” in Reason and Religion (ed. S.C. Brown. New York: Cornell University Press, 1977), 81-102.

[17] Hart attacks this perspective constantly throughout The Doors of the Sea.

[18] These sentiments are best captured in Voltaire’s initial work A Poem of the Lisbon Disaster and again in his later novel, Candide.  Voltaire struggled with concepts that this was in some way punititive or that it was somehow a part of a finely tuned universe that was naturally good that perfectly balanced good and evil that resulted in a universal harmony.  In his poem, he encourages those who take this view to come to Lisbon and observed the hundreds of dead babies strewn about the streets.  Suffering like this was not morally intelligible.

[19] Dostoyevsky presents a more nuanced criticism of the progressive optimism of diesm towards evil, but even more so casts doubt about thinking of evil as an integral part of God’s plan where man’s free will must be allowed to reign.  In the character of Ivan, Dostoyevsky spells out a criticism in this question:  Is the torture and death of little children somehow meaningful to bring about God’s great plan?  In the words of Ivan:“Tell me frankly…. Imagine that it is you yourself who are erecting an edifice of human destiny with the aim of making man happy in the end, of giving them peace and contentment at last, but that to do so that it is absolutely necessary, and indeed quite inevitable, to torture to death only one tiny creature, the little girl who beat her breast with her little fist, and to found the edifice on her unavenged tears—would you consent to architect on those conditions?” Not only was suffering not morally intelligible as Voltaire suggested, it would be a much worse world if it were.

[20] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillian, 1943), 120.

[21] Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence first appears in Proslogion, ii-iv.

[22] A comparison of Lewis’s theory of desire with his critics is excellently discussed in an online essay by Edward M. Cook, “Does Joy Lead to God? Lewis, Beversluis, and the Argument from Desire,” n.p. [cited 5 May 2010].  Online: http://homepage.mac.com/edcook/lewis-desire.html.

[23] A good discussion about how evolutionary idealism became a part of natural theology can be found in Peter Bowler’s Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in the Early Twentieth Century Britain (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2001).

[24] R.J. Berry discusses this point in “Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology,” S&CB 19 (2007): 18-19.  He rightly concludes that natural law is “a dubious foundation” for any natural theology (p. 21).

[25] Bowler, Reconciling Science and Religion. 417.

[26] Pattle Pun approaches process creationism from a reformed perspective in ‘A Theology of Progressive Creationism.’ Perspectives of Science and Christian Faith 39 (1987) : 9-19.

[27] By Neo-orthodoxy, I am referring to a approach to Christianity that believes in the reality of the Church and God working though it, but have long ago adopted liberal and scientific concepts to replace biblical ones.  The Bible is seen as a human-inspired and mythic work of literature rather than as historic and divinely inspired.  Regardless, God is able to use the Bible to spiritually inspire the Church.

[28] Sjoerd Bonting approaches progressive creationism from a liberal/neo-orthodox perspective in Creation and Double Chaos. Also see ‘Chaos Theology: A New Approach to the Science-Theology Dialogue.’ Zygon 34 (1999): 323-32 by the same author.

[29] Theophilus’ approach is captured in the notes section in an article by John Bimson ‘Reconsidering a Cosmic Fall’ S&CB 18 (2006): 63.

[30] Peter Kreeft and Ronald Taccelli, The Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Madison, WI: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 135.

[31] Origin. De Principiis 1.5.1.  Commentary on Origin’s thinking on the subject is captured well by H. Paul Santmire in The Travil of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1985), 47-51.

[32] Ibid. 65-73.

[33] Others agree, notably G.H. Tavard in “The Mystery of Divine Providence” Theology Today 64 (2003): 709-10

[34] Hart discusses the dual personality of nature at length in The Doors of the Sea, 45-68.

[35] Alexander Souter, “Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul: II Text and Apparatus Criticus” Text and Studies IX (1926): 45, 48.

[36] Justin’s discussions are found in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Tiatian relates his views on man’s sinfulness not being an inherited quality in Address to the Greeks. A good discussion on the doctrine of original sin among the early church father can be found by Harold O. Forshey in “The Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin in the Second Century,” Restoration Quarterly 3 (1959): 119-129.

[37] These views on the mediator nature of mankind are discussed by Dragos Bahrim in his article “The Anthropic Cosmology of St Maximus the Confessor” Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science 3 (2008): 25-31.  The discussion of the fall of man in handled in Maximus’ Ambigua, Patrologia Graecae [PG], vol 91, 1308C.  Hart discusses the fall from Maximus’ perspective of man’s mediatory status and its misuse to the hurt of creation in The Doors of the Sea, 63.

[38] S.E. Alsford, “Evil in the Non-Human World” S&CB 3 (1991): 127.

[39] John Polkinghorne, “Scripture and an Evolving Creation,” S&CB 21 (2009): 163-73.

[40] Several articles and books are available by R.J. Berry on the subject with a specific interest in its ramifications for ecology:  “A Cosmic Fall?” S&CB 19 (2007): 78-80.  “Eden & Ecology,” S&CB 19 (2007): 15-35.  God’s Book of Works: Nature and the Theology of Nature (London: T&T Clark, 2003).

[41] Holmes Rolston III, “Does Nature Need to be Redeemed?” Zygon 29 (1994).

[42] John J. Bimson,  “Reconsidering a ‘Cosmic Fall’’’ S&CB 18 (2006): 63-81.

[43] Gavin B. McGrath, “Soteriology: Adam and the Fall,”Perspective of Science and the Christian Faith 49 (1997): 252-60.

[44] John C. Mundy Jr., “Creature Mortality: From Creation or the Fall?” JETS 35 (1992): 51-68.

[45] P.G. Nelson, “The Curse: Relational or Cosmic?” S&CB 19 (2007): 77-78.

[46] R.J. Berry “Lions Seek their Prey from God: a Commentary on the Boyle Lecture” S&CB 17 (2005): 54-55.

[47] Hart, The Doors of the Sea, 82.

[48] Ronald L. Hall, “Responsibility and Intention: Reflections on the Problem of God’s Will and Human Suffering,” Perspectives in Religious Studies, 6 (1979): 142-151.

[49] Thomas Kazen treats examines these possibilities for suffering and successfully refutes them in, “Standing Helpless at the Roar and Surging of the Sea: Reading Biblical Texts in the Shadow of the Wave” Studia Theologica 60 (2006), 21-41.

[50] Hart, The Doors of the Sea, 31.

[51] Many in the Christian community take this view of evil as being senseless or purposeless: Dan Allendar from a counseling perspective in “The Mark of Evil” in God and the Victim (ed. L. Lampman, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 52-3, and J. Stackhouse in Can God Be Trusted?, p.62, and of course Hart’s The Doors of the Sea, 73-4.

[52] Robert B. Chisholm Jr gives an excellent argument for why Old Testaments instances of God-ordained natural disasters are not to be taken as normative in “How A Hermeutical Virus Can Corrupt Theological Systems,”  Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (2009): 259-70

[53] Ibid, 62.

[54] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1940): 121-124.

[55] Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p.62.

[56] Erwin Lutzer, Where Was God?  Answers to Tough Questions About God and Natural Disasters (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2006) 28-30.

[57] This reality is captured in his Space Trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet (New York: Scribner, 1996),  Perelandra (New York: Scribner, 1996), and That Hideous Strength(New York: Scribner, 1996).

[58] This view is given the most validity out of a survey of others by Kreeft and Tacelli in The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 135-6.  The reason it is not more popular, the author theorizes, is because the talk of demonic activity in the world is unfashionable in contemporary scholarship.

[59] J.C. Polkinghorne, Science and Creation (London: SPCK, 1988), 15-16.

[60] Hart describes the difficulty of the Reformed theologian in being able to explain why we suffer from nature without arousing anger and disgust from a suffering person, Christian or otherwise: The Doors of the Sea, pp 99-100.

[61] Ibid, p.104.

I began to see that behind these questions lie ones even more primary in nature: why do we seek so strongly to find meaning in our lives, especially in the arena of suffering and pain?[1] Why is the natural inclination of men to seek meaning in their suffering when other valid, albeit less acceptable explanations exist which we at times are all too eager to offer up when consoling others?  Is a desire to find meaning in suffering a selfish one?  It seems a corollary area of study alongside the study of suffering would be something akin to a theology of meaning.  It cannot be stressed enough how important it is to understand this primary motivation for seeking answers about evil.  If we do not start our inquiry here, we will not solve the problem at its source.  Theodicies constructed in this fashion are like pain killers taken without a concern for understanding the source of the pain.  All theodicies and explanations for evil in the world stem from this desire: to find meaning behind why we suffer.

Is it possible the desire for meaning is similar in nature to the desire for God?  It is one that is seduced by a thousand false alternatives: a good job or perfect marriage; to achieve them is to experience disappointment if what we desired in their consummation could not be found in them.[2] As Augustine is so often quoted, “Thou hast created us for Thyself, and our heart is not quiet until it rests in Thee.”[3] Maybe similar also is the nature of the multiple dimensions of love.  According to C.S. Lewis[4] who was likely influenced by Platonism[5], the lower levels of love, such as eros, seem to have been designed not as the ultimate fulfillment of relational desire, but as gateways into a selfless realm.  Even more so they are pointers or signposts: that once experienced with an excessive expectation beyond its intended design, leads to disappointment that painfully but thankfully points us to something greater—ultimately culminating in a sincere adoption of a selfless, agape love.  Eros can best be experienced when it is enjoyed within its designed sphere just like a good job can be best experienced if our hearts have found God and so its desire is regulated to something more appropriate than one that only a relationship with God could fulfill.

Does the desire for meaning follow a similar pattern?  In our suffering, we find ourselves in a position to strongly desire meaning to explain it.  Pat answers will not suffice because our pain demands truth, and our selfishness which is normally an enemy in intellectual thought naturally steering us towards self-centered answers becomes instead an ally.  In our desire to find meaning, we may in some circumstances find answers on a factual level that nonetheless remain unsatisfactory: we were robbed because the criminal was a drug addict in desperate need of money and not in his right mind.  Although we may see beneficial outcomes, such as a newfound knowledge in how to add more security to our house and keep our family safe, we will often take the search for meaning to the next level because the first one proved unsatisfactory– to inquire of the governing bodies of the universe as to why such an event was meaningful in our lives.

Maybe we are told that an idea or force, such as karma, is responsible, or that innocent suffering is needed for the benefit of the cosmos in some mystical way.   Another answer is that the ultimate purpose of evil in our lives is for our learning benefit. It seems in my experience however that ideas, no matter how well constructed, objectively true, or strongly believed, seem inadequate to satiate the desire for meaning.  They feel to me to be a secondary product of a more primary source; the explanations of the rational minds of men to explain the indirect workings of a more primary governor of reality.   Ideas and explanations will never satisfy a desire to find meaning; only an audience and a relationship with the Creator of all reality will.[6]

This is an important point: it is an interactive relationship with God, not an idea of God that contains the satiation for our desire for meaning.  The divine relationship satisfies our desire for meaning like food satisfies our hunger, not pictures of food or the concept of food.  The idea that God exists and has all the attributes of classical theism is not the object of meaning’s satisfaction because the idea of an all powerful God is still that—an idea. This is why deistic forms of Christianity fail to provide answers to the problem of evil.  If we encounter God, the Creator of the universe, and we are told categorically that he loves us and that he is in control in convincing ways, is that not the very end result of our desire for meaning? Now the lower levels can be comprehended because they have a satisfactory context or framework with which to extract meaning from.  Returning to our earlier event of theft, the factual evidence of the situation is now more satisfactory because it is understood in its proper context (that it only provides a lesser level of meaning but is missing the ultimate context): The criminal who robbed me was desperate for money, but God loves me (and the thief!) and is ultimately in control of all things, which he often reminds me when I talk with him.

The deeper hearts of men are not fooled: a driving force or an idea can never be other than a secondary product of a more primary source. Do not the ideals of love, charity, and selflessness become more comprehensible and livable once we are in a relationship with the Creator?  Instead of a wooden application of them, a deeper, more enjoyable adherence to them is possible because their importance and meaning to our lives is understood in the context of their Creator.  This perspective may give some insight into explaining the rationality of Christian theism in light of criticism based on the Platonic Euthyphro dilemma.[7]

And so it was with Job.  Job received what he needed most: an audience with God himself.  Without the divine relationship, the ultimate consummation of our desire for meaning, how could the lesser levels of meaning be understood with satisfaction?  If, theoretically, Job was told about the heavenly meetings between God and Satan by one of the bene Eloheim, the Sons of God of the heavenly court observing the story from both realms, he might not have been satisfied.  He might have been even more confused and possibly more angry or in greater despair.  If he were told possible ideas behind God’s reasons, such as God wanting to make an example of his life to tell the world a new truth, he would not have been satisfied either.  Truth and ideas, no matter how good, would seem sour in the faces of his dead children.

We are never told about God and Job’s later interactions.  If our model is somewhat correct, we could tentatively say that with their relationship intact, God could reveal the lower levels of meaning regarding Job’s plight.  Maybe God only revealed those details to a glorified Job (when had died and was reborn and lived in God’s presence), whose mind and heart could only then comprehend its purposes.  In the end, it seems ideals are mapped to a relational person who embodies them, and it is that Person who gives them intrinsic meaning in a waterfall-like process.  This can be seen in a lesser degree by the person of King David, who represented God’s ideals, and who men respected a great deal and would die for, and who in some way inspired those ideals to be upheld by his people with more force than if David never were.  This may be another facet of the way we were intended to be as made in the image of God.

Unlike the similar model of the dimensions of love which seems to follow an upward experiential path from eros to agape, it seems the path of meaning must ideally take a top-down experiential path even though its arrival at the top came from questions from below.  A relationship with God is required for adequate satisfaction to be found at lower levels.  However, like love, agape transcends all lower forms, and similarly, a relationship with God transcends the need to comprehend meaning at lower levels.  Even though Job may never have understood why such suffering occurred in his life during his time on earth, his relationship with God satisfied him.

Perhaps this theory of meaning has links to other theological thought.  Anselm of Canterbury proposed that all Christian doctrine and by extension, all knowledge and meaning about our experiences in our life, require a relationship with God as a starting point:

“Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand.[8]”

So anyway, just some of my thoughts on the subject…

[2] In Surprised by Joy (London: Harcourt, 1955), C.S. Lewis sees this desire for God at first found in surprising moments or things that elicit a deep joy that once experienced leaves a person wanting more. They in turn lead to other experiences in life which in turn continues the search until they arrive at a relationship with God.  This is the central idea in Lewis’ autobiography: that pictures of the divine reside in things and experiences of everyday life that ultimately point to him.

[3] The statement comes from Augustine’s opening discussions in Confessions (I,i).

[4] C.S. Lewis gives this subject serious treatment in The Four Loves (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1960).

[5] This Platonic view of love is found in Plato’s dialogue The Symposium where Socrates is discussing the subject with others, and his speech begins in 201d where he quotes the philosophy of Diotima of Mantinea.

[6] This concept seems to be acknowledged by the downfall of the allegorical character of Virtue in C.S. Lewis’ Pilgrim’s Regress (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1933). To be virtuous for the sake of the ideal of virtue inevitably leads to a desire to understand why virtue is to be followed when life becomes hard and tragic.  If there is no ultimate, conscious Creator who embodies virtue, we are left with no source of meaning for virtue and virtuous living, and thus begins our descent into nihilism and selfishness.

[7] The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, where Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (10a)?  In other words, what comes first, moral goodness and truth that God lives by that are separate from himself, or a God who commands obedience to them because they are real in that they reflect his nature?  It is my proposal that moral truths and ideals ultimately do not contain sustainable weight and meaning without a relationship with the God in whom they are the ultimate embodiment of.

[8] This idea is part of Anselm’s discussion on a logical explanation of the existence of God via the ontological proof, or that the existence of God is implicated by the existence of the ideas we have about him, which would not exist if they had no bearing on reality, Proslogion, ii-iv.  Anselm, like C.S. Lewis, was heavily influenced by Platonic thought.  In Philosophy & The Christian Faith (London: Tyndale Press, 1968), Colin Brown who is taking his cue from Carl Barth’s commentary on Anselm, sees that Anselm is not looking at our ideas of the divine from a purely existential perspective, but rather from the framework of the mind of one who already believes in God and has received divine revelation though that relationship (p.22, notes).



There is a time and a place for deep thinking and quiet reflection.  However, I think the power of the spiritual life lies in the difficulties of reality.  Impatient men learn patience, people distant from God draw near to him because of their need.  It is here somewhere that we are fashioned into the nature and character of God and we bring a little light into the world in the process.  We are shaped not so often by our thinking, but by the events in our lives.  Most of my spiritual reflection has been based on reactions to difficult events in my life.  Now it seems the opposite is true.  I have thought a lot about patience, selflessness, and the character of God.  Now its time to live those beliefs and bring light to the world again.  My wife and children need it.