{"id":6884,"date":"2025-12-13T05:24:14","date_gmt":"2025-12-13T12:24:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/"},"modified":"2025-12-13T16:06:17","modified_gmt":"2025-12-13T23:06:17","slug":"ehrman-wright-on-the-problem-of-evil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/ehrman-wright-on-the-problem-of-evil","title":{"rendered":"Ehrman & Wright on the Problem of Evil"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I’m finishing the first of a three-volume, systematic theology of love. In a chapter on providence, I address the problem of evil. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve written about the problem of evil in many books, but I chose a different approach to the topic for this one. I decided to look carefully at two influential New Testament scholars and their exploration of scripture and the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below are summaries and analyses of books by Bart Ehrman and NT Wright. Their reflections on scripture set me up to propose a six-fold solution to the problem of evil. You can find that solution on my Substack <\/a>and in the forthcoming book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evil and Scripture – Bart Ehrman<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Christians search scripture for a solution to the problem of evil. In a book he titles, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question \u2014 Why We Suffer<\/em>, biblical scholar Bart Ehrman explores what biblical writers say about God and suffering.[17]<\/sup><\/a> The Bible offers a range of answers.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Many biblical authors believe pain and suffering are divine punishment. The book of Amos, for instance, describes God punishing humans for their transgressions. This includes burning, nakedness, famine, isolation, drought, pestilence, death, and other disasters (1:3-4, 6-8). It\u2019s brutal! But divine punishment is not just found in Amos. It\u2019s \u201cthe point of view of the majority of authors who produced the biblical texts,\u201d concludes Ehrman.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If an omnipotent deity punishes the wicked, people who suffer more than others must be more wicked. But this doesn\u2019t fit life as we know it nor the witness of other biblical texts, such as the story of Job. Innocent babies sometimes suffer, and the wicked sometimes prosper. More importantly, the idea that evil is God\u2019s punishment stands at odds with divine forgiveness. If true, God doesn\u2019t always \u201cturn the other cheek,\u201d even though Jesus tells his disciples they must (Mt. 5:39). Therefore, the punishment view of evil portrays God as not always forgiving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A second biblical view says suffering is the natural consequence that comes from sin, ours or the sins of others. The book of Judges, for instance, offers examples of victims who suffer because of the violence others do. The apostle Paul recounts suffering caused by humans and other creaturely factors, not God (2 Cor. 11:23-26). And New Testament writers say a sinless Jesus suffered and died at the hands of religious and political authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea that sin brings natural negative consequences is the closest biblical writers come to free-will theodicy. But believers who embrace it, says Ehrman, usually believe in an \u201call-powerful Sovereign of this world who foreknows all things.\u201d If an omnipotent and foreknowing deity causes or allows evil, says Ehrman, \u201cthere is very little we could do about it.[20]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d It must be God\u2019s will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A third biblical response says evil is redemptive: God wants it for some good. The story of Joseph is thought to illustrate this (Gen. chs. 37-50), says Ehrman. Joseph was sold into slavery, but this evil made it possible for him, later, to save his brothers. The story of Moses leading people out of Egypt can be interpreted as God allowing evil (slavery) for some greater good (the promised land). Many say God wanted the death of Jesus, because \u201cby his wounds we are healed\u201d (Isa. 53:5). The idea that suffering is redemptive, says Ehrman, \u201cis found throughout the Bible.[21]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This answer fails to account for the fact that genuine evils lead to less good than what was otherwise possible. Take genocide as an example, or rape. Whatever goods that come from them are surely less beneficial than if these horrors had never occurred. If they aren\u2019t, we should rejoice when mass killings and sexual abuse occur. But we don\u2019t. In fact, \u201cmost <\/em>suffering is not positive,\u201d claims Ehrman. It \u201cdoes not have a silver lining, is not good for the body or soul, and leads to wretched and miserable, not positive, outcomes.[22]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ehrman labels the final biblical answer to evil \u201capocalypticism.[23]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d It says evil forces work against God and harm creatures. Those who embrace the apocalyptic view, says Ehrman, believe \u201cGod handed over control of the world to these forces of evil.\u201d Those forces will eventually be overcome, however, when the kingdom of God has come in power (Mk 9:1). According to this view, says Ehrman, \u201cGod will reassert himself and wrest control of this world from the forces that now dominate it.[24]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The apocalyptic answer is rife with problems, because most who hold this view think God is omnipotent. To overcome evil, an all-powerful deity doesn\u2019t need to wait on anyone or anything; He can do it now. Besides, a perfectly loving deity would never give control to evil forces and figures. That\u2019s like hiring a babysitter whom we know tortures children. And thinking God will eventually overcome evil singlehandedly should, logically, lead us to be complacent about solving life\u2019s problems. Why make sacrifices now if, no matter what we do, God will later fix things singlehandedly?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After considering the Bible\u2019s answers to the problem of evil, Ehrman finds none satisfying. Like atheists and agnostics, therefore, Ehrman stopped believing God exists. He \u201cfelt compelled to leave Christianity,\u201d he says, although he left \u201ckicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold to the faith.[25]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d He \u201ccould no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given\u2026 a cesspool of misery and suffering.[26]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bible does not solve the problem that leads hundreds of millions to unbelief and billions to confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evil and Scripture – N. T. Wright<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In his book Evil and the Justice of God<\/em>, N. T. Wright also explores what scripture says about God and evil. Wright doesn\u2019t address as many biblical passages as Ehrman does. But Wright\u2019s exploration leads him to agree with Ehrman on some points and disagree on others.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Wright explicitly tells readers he doesn\u2019t have an answer to why God fails to prevent evil. And like Ehrman, he believes biblical writers don\u2019t solve the problem, let alone reveal evil\u2019s origin. \u201cWe are not told \u2014 or not in any way that satisfies our puzzled questioning,\u201d says Wright, \u201chow and why there is radical evil within God\u2019s wonderful, beautiful, and essentially good creation.[27]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several of Wright\u2019s comments address well-known responses to the problem of evil, however. He\u2019s skeptical of the view that God permits evil so that virtue can flourish, for instance.[28]<\/sup><\/a> Wright never says God allows evil to bring a greater good.[29]<\/sup><\/a> He sometimes talks about God\u2019s \u201cproject\u201d for creation and, in several comments, says sin is self-defeating.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wright never directly says, as I do, that God can\u2019t <\/em>prevent evil singlehandedly. But he makes statements that say or imply divine power has limits. He says, for instance, that \u201cGod cannot undo the good creation, even though it has gone wrong.[31]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d That\u2019s a \u2018God can\u2019t\u2019 statement. Wright says God\u2019s work to overcome evil isn\u2019t easy. \u201cGod has had to work to bring the world out of the mess,\u201d he says. Deity \u201chas to get his boots muddy\u201d and \u201chis hands bloody.[32]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d That suggests limits on divine power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, Wright rejects the idea that \u201cGod is the omnicompetent managing director of a very large machine.[33]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d That statement seems to admit God can\u2019t do some things. But Wright says that for a reason he cannot understand, \u201cthe Creator God will not simply abolish evil from this world.[34]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d The words \u201cwill not\u201d suggest that God could abolish evil but chooses not to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wright\u2019s main proposal for understanding God and evil includes a central role for the crucifixion of Jesus. The cross is \u201can event in which the living God deals with [evil].\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> It is \u201cconfronted,\u201d \u201cdefeated,\u201d and \u201cexhausted,\u201d says Wright.[36]<\/sup><\/a> The cross is \u201cthe sign that pagan empire, symbolized in the might and power of sheer brutal force, has been decisively challenged by a different power, the power of love, the power that shall win the day.[37]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d In other quotes like this last one, Wright prioritizes love over power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

God does not defeat evil by the cross alone, however, according to Wright. We also have a role to play. We \u201cact as God\u2019s wise agents\u2026to bring his wise and healing order to the world, putting the world to rights under his just and gentle rule.[38]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d We must \u201cimplement <\/em>the victory of God in the world through suffering love<\/em>.[39]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How will God do this? Wright doesn\u2019t provide specific details. But he points to forgiveness. Overcoming evil and bringing new creation involves God\u2019s forgiving love. We must also forgive so that we \u201cwill no longer be affected or infected by [evil].[40]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d This sentence summarizes Wright\u2019s view: \u201cWhen we understand forgiveness, flowing from the work of Jesus and the Spirit, as the strange, powerful thing it really is, we begin to realize that God\u2019s forgiveness of us, and our forgiveness of others, is the knife that cuts the rope by which sin, anger, fear, recrimination and death are still attached to us.[41]<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So\u2026 how should we evaluate Wright\u2019s proposals?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because Wright does not solve the problem of evil, the book is, on that central issue, a failure. Readers are left with their main question unanswered: Why doesn\u2019t God prevent<\/em> genuine evil? And because the question remains, others arise. If God has the ability to abolish evil eventually, wouldn\u2019t a loving deity do so now<\/em>? Why wait? If God can resurrect Jesus without \u201cundoing\u201d creation, how can God resurrect the rest of us without undoing it? What\u2019s the relation between divine sovereignty and suffering love?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that the Bible fails to solve the problem of evil \u2014 something both Wright and Ehrman admit \u2014 does not <\/em>mean the issue is inconsequential. The absence of an explicit answer in scripture doesn\u2019t give us an excuse to pretend the problem doesn\u2019t need solving. It does. But the Bible doesn’t solve it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wright\u2019s focus on forgiveness is partly helpful. The Spirit\u2019s forgiveness delivers us from worries about divine punishment. Our forgiving delivers us from resentment, bitterness, and self-loathing. But God\u2019s forgiving and ours doesn\u2019t deliver us from the harm we experience when we and others do evil. Worse, a deity who allows evil just to forgive it does not love victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although a failure in one sense, Wright\u2019s book is helpful in others. He shuns inadequate answers to evil, for instance, and admits that divine power has limits. Wright doesn\u2019t dismiss evil as privation or say God allows suffering for some greater good. He never says God alone <\/em>overcomes evil and often <\/em>points to the role creatures play. His emphasis upon forgiveness opposes the idea that God punishes. Most promisingly, Wright rejects divine omnicompetence and brutal force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Wright, God\u2019s power is suffering and gentle love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Ehrman\u2019s and Wright\u2019s exploration of scripture helps in several ways. Both scholars are clear that scripture cannot solve the biggest question both atheists and theists ask: why doesn’t God prevent genuine evil? The work of these two New Testament scholars should prompt us to look beyond the Bible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In earlier chapters of my Systematic Theology of Love<\/em>, I’ve proposed a view of a loving but uncontrolling Spirit and a doctrine of divine power I call “amipotence.” Following my engagement with Ehrman and Wright, I offer a six-fold solution to the problem of evil, because the problem has various dimensions. While my solution is not explicitly found in scripture, it draws from various biblical themes and ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[To read the full chapter, including the six-fold solution to the problem of evil, consider becoming a paid Substack subscriber. Paid subscribers get a signed copy of the finished book and their names added to the book’s acknowledgements. See this link for info.<\/a>] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I’m finishing the first of a three-volume, systematic theology of love. In a chapter on providence, I address the problem of evil. I’ve written about the problem of evil in many books, but I chose a different approach to the topic for this one. I decided to look carefully at two influential New Testament scholars […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[22,6890,7507],"yst_prominent_words":[1024,1093,1153,1740,1778,2218,3770,4373,4478,5388,5853,6880],"class_list":["post-6884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-love_and_altruism","tag-theodicy","tag-nt-wright","tag-bart-ehrman"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6884"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}