The Theology of Unclean Food (Gordon J Wenham)

One aspect of the Old Testament which has constantly eluded ordinary Christians is the "food laws" spelled out especially in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For Christians in the west, these laws may seem not only archaic but unnecessary. For those of us who have had contact with Jews or Muslims, we recognise that "food laws" are not only mandatory; in a profound sense, they define a very important tenet of their theology and, indeed, they form the "warp-and-woof" of daily living. In this article, Gordon Wenham offers much needed help for those of us who wish to understand the food laws in the Old Testament. I readily confess to a particular liking for Wenham as his writings have always left me with a clear "Christian" understanding of the Old Testament. He has his feet firmly planted on the necessity of understand the Old Testament within its own context, but without losing the necessary perspective offered by the fuller and more complete revelation offered by Christ and the apostles. This article is a wonderful example of what Wenham often does so well in that respect. It was originally published as Gordon J. Wenham, “The Theology of Unclean Food,” Evangelical Quarterly 53.1 (January/March 1981): 6-15.

_________________

The problem of unclean foods was at the heart of the first great controversy in the early church (Acts 15). Did Gentile believers have to be circumcised and keep the laws of Moses about food? The conclusions of the council of Jerusalem are recorded in Acts, but there is little explanation of the theological reasoning behind the decisions. Commentators therefore tend to regard the decree (Acts 15:19-20) as little more than a pragmatic compromise between Judaizers and Hellenists.1

Since the theological principles determining the division of animals into clean and unclean are so obscure in the OT, it is not surprising that NT scholars have only been able to discern pragmatic reasons for the abolition of the distinction. Recent discussion of the OT material has at last brought some semblance of order into the apparent chaos of the food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. These insights, it will be suggested, may also provide a clue to the thinking of the primitive church on these controversial issues.

I. TRADITIONAL EXPLANATIONS OF THE FOOD LAWS

1. Hygiene
Probably the most popular explanation of the food laws is hygiene. The unclean animals were recognized by the ancients as a danger to health, and were therefore pronounced unclean. This explanation is a very old one, but enjoyed its greatest vogue at the beginning of this century, with the great advances in medical knowledge. Moses was hailed as anticipating the findings of modern science. It still has its advocates today. R. E. Clements writes: “What we have here is a simple and comprehensive guidebook to food and personal hygiene.”2

Despite its inherent attractiveness the hygienic explanation faces four grave difficulties.3 First, other peoples have held and hold certain animals to be unclean, yet their demarcations seldom coincide with the biblical. Second, it is far from clear that all unclean animals mentioned in Leviticus are harmful to health. For example, the Arabs have long enjoyed the camel and its products. As for pork, if it is supposed that ancient Israel had discovered the risks in eating it, they could also have learnt that these risks could be avoided by cooking it thoroughly. Third, though motive clauses justifying particular rules are frequent in biblical law, there is no appeal to health in connection with the food rules. Yet this would surely have constituted an excellent reason for keeping them had it been recognized. Instead the motive clauses explain that certain animals may not be eaten, because of the way they travel or their eating habits (Lev. 11:3-12, 20-23, 26-31, etc.). Finally, if hygiene was the motive underlying the OT regulations, why did the early church allow their abolition in the first century AD? What was harmful when Leviticus 11 was drafted, would have been just as dangerous in the days of the early church.

2. Religious Associations
The second kind of explanation of the food laws is that the unclean animals were closely associated with non-Israelite religion.4 They were either used in sacrifice or the deities were supposed to manifest themselves in animal form. Israel was called to be the holy people of God and had therefore to disassociate itself from these pagan practices. For example, Isa. 65:4 speaks of people “who sit in tombs... who eat swine’s flesh”. And at various sites collections of pig bones have been found, which lends support to the notion that the pig was eaten in Canaanite rituals.5 Other animals banned as unclean by Leviticus were worshipped by the Egyptians.

This explanation of the distinction between clean and unclean animals has the merit of noting the biblical writers’ insistence that these regulations are designed to further the ideal of creating a holy nation (Lev. 11:44-5; Deut. 14:2). But its major weakness is that it can only explain a few of the regulations. In general, Israel used much the same animals for sacrifice as her neighbours. If use in contemporary religions were ground for making animals unclean, the bull should have been an abomination in Israel in view of its role in Canaanite and Egyptian culture. Yet in Israel the bull was the best and most valued of the sacrificial animals.

3. Carnivores
A third view is that the unclean animals are the carnivorous animals and the carrion-eating birds.6 This view finds support from the Mishnah,7 which suggests that the birds listed in Lev. 11:13-19 and Deut. 14:12-18 are birds of prey. The identification of some of these birds is still a matter of some doubt. But most commentators accept the Mishnah as basis for more precise identification. It is attractive to try and extend this logic to cover other branches of the animal kingdom. Obviously cloven-hoofed ruminants do not live on meat, whereas animals with paws (Lev. 11:27) such as cats and dogs are carnivorous.

This theory has greater merits than the first two, in that it covers more of the cases listed than they do. But it is noteworthy that in the lists of unclean animals it is never mentioned that they eat meat. Nor can some of the distinctions be explained on these grounds. Why should goats be clean, but pigs not? Why should locusts be thought edible, but no other insects? What is the thinking behind the division among water creatures?

Though inadequate as a total explanation of the uncleanness rules, G. R. Driver has drawn attention to an important aspect of biblical theology: the connection between man and the animal kingdom. Some of the animals are unclean because they do what is forbidden to man: they eat flesh with blood in it (Gen. 9:4-5; cf. Lev. 11:39). In the principle that the divisions among the animals and the way in which they behave mirror, at least to some extent, mankind’s divisions and behaviour, M. Douglas8 has found the key to these laws.

4. Symbolic Interpretations
The idea that different animals somehow symbolize men and their behaviour was a commonplace among older commentators. However, there is little agreement about what was symbolized. For example, one commentator9 suggests that chewing the cud makes an animal clean, because it reminded men to meditate on the law. Another10 suggested that the sheep is clean because it reminded the ancient Israelite that the LORD was his shepherd. But the dirty habits of the pig speak of the “filth of iniquity”. Other commentators11 have supposed that some animals are accounted unclean because of their associations with death or sin. This approach to the problem is intriguing and even entertaining, but it is little better than intuitive guesswork. The symbolism discovered depends largely on the commentator’s imagination, and there is no attempt to prove that the alleged symbolism really underlies the legal definitions. Unless greater discipline can be introduced into symbolist interpretation, it will always be more liable to represent the whims of the commentator than the purpose of the law.

II. AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH

The most recent attempt to interpret these laws is indeed symbolist, but it is based on a wideranging and empirical approach to the laws of Leviticus. In her book Purity and Danger Mary Douglas12 drew attention to the fact that in Leviticus holiness is not merely defined negatively as separation from evil, but positively as purity and wholeness and integrity. Holiness means purity in both the physical and moral sphere. Mixtures are abominated, whether they are mixed crops, mixed materials or mixed marriages (Lev. 18:23; 19:19; Deut. 7:3-6; 22:9-11). Holiness also means physical wholeness. The priests must not cut themselves, but “shall be holy to their God” (Lev. 21:5-6). They must. be physically unblemished; those who are lame, blind, or in any way deformed, may not officiate as priests (Lev. 21:5-6). Similar, though less stringent, regulations apply to laymen (Deut. 23:1-2―Heb. 2-3). Holiness also concerns the moral sphere. Wholeness, or integrity, is again of fundamental importance. Honesty and consistency in all one’s dealings are emphasized. Injunctions to this effect are found alongside those about purity and wholeness in Leviticus 19.

Douglas argues that the same insistence on wholeness underlies the uncleanness laws in Lev. 11/Deut. 14. The animal world is divided into three spheres: those that fly in the air, those that walk on the land, and those that swim in the seas (cf. Gen. 1:20-30). Each sphere has a particular mode of motion associated with it. Birds have two wings to fly with, and two feet for walking: fish have fins and scales to swim with; land animals have hooves to run with.

The clean animals are those that conform to these standard pure types. Those creatures which in some way transgress the boundaries are unclean. Thus fish without fins and scales are unclean (Lev. 11:10; Deut. 14:10). Insects which fly but which have many legs are unclean, whereas locusts which have wings and only two hopping legs are clean (Lev. 11:20-23). Animals with an indeterminate form of motion, i.e., which “swarm”, are unclean (Lev. 11:41-44). “Holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong.”13 In so far as some animals do not conform, they are unclean.

This analysis explains the main divisions between clean and unclean, but it does not explain why pigs are unclean, but sheep and goats are reckoned to be clean. Douglas thinks a rationale for this differentiation may be discerned if the social background to the laws is borne in mind. Sheep and goats would have been the standard meat of pastoralists, so it was natural for them to be regarded as clean. But pigs and camels did not conform exactly to the norms of behaviour defined by sheep and goats and were therefore unclean. They transgress the boundaries of clean animals in not chewing the cud or in lacking cloven feet. In other words, there is a parallel between the holiness looked for in man and the cleanness of animals: man must conform to the norms of moral and physical perfection, and animals must conform to the standards of the animal group to which they belong.14

But this is far from establishing a close tie-up between the animal and human world. In an article published in 1972, Douglas attempted this.15 In a series of diagrams she demonstrates that each sphere of the animal world is structured in a very similar fashion to the human world. The divisions between different groups of animals parallel the divisions between different human groups. There is such a degree of isomorphism between these different spheres that it is likely that, in the Israelite mind at least, a connection was seen between one sphere and the other. The patterns repeat so clearly that someone living in that culture would probably have sensed the analogy and appreciated the symbolism.

Various texts in the OT explicitly express the notion that there is a close relationship between man and the animals. According to Gen. 1:29-30 man and the animals were both expected to be vegetarian. In 2:18-20 the animals were formed as man’s companions. According to the decalogue, domestic animals were expected to keep the sabbath along with their masters (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14). If Israel kept the covenant law, both man and beast were to be blessed with offspring (Deut. 28:4); but if the nation proved faithless, both children and animals were to be destroyed (Lev. 26:22; Deut. 28:18, 50-57).

Very striking are the close analogies between the role of the first-born among men and the first-born among animals. Both are dedicated to God (Exod. 13:2; 22:29-30 (Heb. 28-29); 34:19). Both have to be redeemed (Exod. 13:13, 15; 34:20). The first-born of non-sacrificial animals like asses must be redeemed by sacrificial animals, such as lambs (Exod. 13:13). Ordinary first-born Israelites are redeemed by Levites (Num. 8:16-18). Another point of similarity is that no animal may be offered to God in sacrifice until it is seven days old (Exod. 22:30 (Heb. 29); Lev. 22:27), which parallels the rule that circumcision is not to be performed until the eighth day after birth (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). Finally, it may be noted that only perfect unblemished animals may be offered in sacrifice (Lev. 1-4); so too only unblemished priests may officiate in worship (Lev. 21:17-21; cf. 22:19-25).

These examples appear to substantiate Douglas’s contention that this symbolism was consciously felt in ancient Israel, that there was a system underlying the uncleanness regulations. They expressed an understanding of holiness, and of Israel’s special status as the holy people of God. The division into clean (edible) foods and unclean (inedible) foods corresponded to the division between holy Israel and the Gentile world. Among those animals that were clean there were a few types that could be offered in sacrifice. Similarly there was a group of men within Israel who could offer sacrifice, the priests. Through this system of symbolic laws Israelites were reminded at every meal of their redemption to be God’s people. Their diet was limited to certain meats in imitation of their God, who had restricted his choice among the nations to Israel. It served, too, to bring to mind Israel’s responsibilities to be a holy nation. As they distinguished between clean and unclean foods, they were reminded that holiness was more than a matter of meat and drink but a way of life characterized by purity and integrity.

III. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE FOOD LAWS

In the OT the food laws symbolized and embodied Israel’s status as a covenant people. No doubt their consciousness of this symbolism waxed and waned in different periods, but during the exile and afterwards the ordinary Israelite must have been constantly reminded of his position as a stranger among the nations by these food laws, which made it difficult for him to eat with Gentile neighbours. It is therefore not surprising that in the NT era there was such controversy about the abolition of these rules. Circumcision was a private matter, but the food laws made one’s Jewish faith a public affair. Observance of the food laws was one of the outward marks of a practising Jew, and this in turn enhanced Jewish attachment to them as a reminder of their special status.

With Christianity OT Judaism was universalized to embrace all mankind. It is of a piece with this transformation that the food laws were dropped by the Christian church. With the incorporation of the Gentiles into the church, Israel was no longer regarded as the unique covenant people (Gal. 3:6-29; Eph. 2:11-16). To drop the laws that symbolized the peculiar status of Israel was not merely convenient if Gentiles were to be converted, it was also a step of theological logic. If the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was broken down, the distinction between clean and unclean food should also have been abolished. But was this theological logic apparent to the NT writers, or did the early church discard the food laws merely for pragmatic reasons to facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles? Were the early Christians really conscious of the symbolism of the levitical law? There are indications that they were.

1. The Synoptic Gospels
In the synoptic gospels one section deals with the question of unclean foods (Matt. 15:1-20/Mark 7:1-23). Jesus attacks the Pharisees for being so punctilious about washing their hands and vessels before meals while neglecting the more important aspects of the law. He insists that what a man eats does not defile him, but only what comes out of him; evil thoughts, murder, etc. In the Matthaean version this is merely a criticism of the Pharisaic concern with ritual washing. But Mark adds as comment in 7:19: “Thus he declared all meats clean”. In other words, if the principle just enunciated by Jesus is taken to its logical conclusion, it not only undermines the Pharisaic concern with clean hands but also the Levitical distinction between clean and unclean animals. But it is noteworthy that the evangelist does not explicitly attribute this conclusion to Jesus. This is of a piece with the synoptic writers’ presentation of Jesus’ mission as a mission to the Jews rather than to the Gentiles. If there was felt to be a connection between the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church and the end of the distinction of foods, we could expect neither or both to figure in the teaching of Jesus, but not one without the other. It seems that neither figures at least at all prominently in his preaching.

Nevertheless it is noteworthy that in both Matthew and Mark the section on uncleanness is immediately followed by the episode of the Syro-Phoenician woman. Jesus reluctantly heals the Greek woman’s daughter, though protesting that he was really sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This suggests that at least in the mind of the evangelists there was a link between Jesus’ remarks on uncleanness and the extension of divine grace to the Gentiles.

2. John
John’s gospel seems to allude to the connection between unclean foods and the Gentiles. In this case, however, Jesus’ attitude to the question of uncleanness is implicit in his actions rather than in his words. He asks a drink of a Samaritan woman, which surprised her, for “Jews and Samaritans... do not use vessels in common” (John 4:9 NEB). By his request Jesus demonstrated his indifference to the uncleanness rules that were accepted by stricter Jews. The story goes on to tell how many Samaritans believed on Jesus. This tale seems to hint that in Christ both the laws on uncleanness and the dispute between Jews and Samaritans are superseded.

3. Acts
Acts 10 explicitly connects the incorporation of the Gentiles with the abolition of the food laws. In his vision Peter sees “all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air” (v.12). He is told to “rise, kill and eat” (v.13). But he refuses saying “ ‘No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.’ And the voice came to him again a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, you must not call common’ ” (vv.14-15).

Mystified by the dream, he is told by the Spirit to go to the house of Cornelius (vv.19-20). Once there he realizes the significance of the vision: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (v.28). In other words the vision commanding Peter to eat unclean animals announces that God has now opened the way to intercourse between Jew and Gentile. Peter goes on to expound more fully the further theological implications of his vision. “God shows no partiality” (v.34); no longer is Israel the unique covenant people. In immediate demonstration of their new standing these Gentiles receive the Spirit like the Jews, and are then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (vv.44-48). Luke underlines the significance of this episode by mentioning it twice more in Acts 11 and 15. Again Peter justifies his new attitude to the Gentiles by referring to the vision of unclean animals (11:5-9; cf. 15:7-9).

Acts 15 tells how the apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss whether Gentile converts should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses; the account makes it plain that it is the food laws that are the controversial element in the law. Both unclean foods and circumcision were marks of distinction between Jew and Gentile. There were strong pragmatic reasons for not imposing circumcision and uncleanness rules on Gentile believers, and it is sometimes suggested that the decision of the council was dictated more by convenience than by theology. But as Luke presents the debate, the decision was the outcome of the Cornelius episode. For a third time we are reminded of what happened on that occasion (vv. 7-11). Then James argues that if the Gentiles are to be admitted to the church, it is logical to drop those laws which symbolized their exclusion. The only demands made of them are that they should abstain from idolatry, immorality, from eating blood and strangled animals. This last regulation was one that was traced back to Noah (Gen. 9:4). Antedating the election of Israel it could not be held to symbolize Israel’s unique status; as presented in Genesis it appears as a moral law binding on all mankind.

4. Paul
Paul discusses at some length which foods a Christian may eat (see Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8; 10). He never suggests that any particular foods are prohibited. The OT distinctions between clean and unclean are never discussed. This is of course parallel to his attitude to the Gentiles; for him they are an integral part of the church (Rom. 11:17-19; Gal. 3:28). For Paul the only reason for abstaining from certain foods is love of one’s neighbour. In Romans 14 he has the plight of Jewish Christians in mind, who may be offended if Gentile Christians do not respect their scruples on food when they eat together. In 1 Cor. 8 love is again the motive for abstinence. But this time it is love for pagans who may be misled into supposing that there is no difference between following Christ and paganism if Christians eat food offered to idols.

SUMMARY
Running through the biblical laws on clean and unclean foods there is a coherent and consistent theology. In Leviticus the divisions within the animal kingdom express in elaborate symbolism the divisions among men, the most important of these being that between Israel and the Gentiles. The laws reminded Israel what sort of behaviour was expected of her, that she had been chosen to be holy in an unclean world. The reality behind this symbolism was reinforced in the national consciousness by its experience among the nations. With the incorporation of Gentiles on an equal footing with Jews in the Christian church, the food laws and circumcision lost their symbolic significance and were therefore dropped within the church. It would be too much to claim that every Jew in biblical times fully understood the symbolism expressed in the food laws, but it is suggested that wherever the Bible discusses unclean foods it is related to the uncleanness of the Gentiles under the old covenant.

_____________________

1 Cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 449; W. Neil, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Oliphants, 1973), 174.
2 R. E. Clements, Leviticus (Broadman Bible Commentary II; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971), 34; cf. W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (New York: Doubleday, 1968), 177-180; G. Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 14.
3 F. J. Simoons, Eat Not This Flesh (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1961), 37-42.
4 M. Noth, Leviticus (London: SCM, 1965), 92, favoured this explanation.
5 R. de Vaux, BZAW 77 (1958), 250-265.
6 G. R. Driver, “Birds in the OT”, PEQ 87 (1955), 7. J. Milgrom, “The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System”, Interpretation 17 (1963), 288-301, also emphasizes the importance of avoiding blood, but thinks hesitations about idolatry were also involved.
7 Hullin 3.6.
8 See below and footnotes 12-15.
9 So Kurtz quoted by C. F. Keil, Manual of Biblical Archaeology, II (Edinburgh: Clark, 1888), 121-2.
10 A. A. Bonar, A Commentary on Leviticus (London: Banner of Truth, 1846 reprinted 1972), 214-215.
11 E.g. D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905), 315-322.
12 M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), 41-57.
13 Douglas, Purity, 53.
14 Douglas, Purity, 54-5.
15 “Deciphering a Meal”, Daedalus 101 (1972), 61-81, reprinted in Natural Symbols (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), 249-275.

© 1981 Gordon J. Wenham

The Bible On The Problem Of Evil (John Frame)

I expect all of us, at some point in our lives, have struggled with the problem of evil. Most would have read material ranging from "simplistic" treatments to highly complicated philosophical ones, and all of them claiming to present the Scriptural position on the subject. Having addressed the problem occasionally I, for one, continue to feel like Job on the subject when he declared almost at the end of his suffering, "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." However, the fact that we cannot plunge the depths of this complex subject does not mean we should ignore it. Rather, we should try our level best to shed more light on it as we grow in our understanding as believers. John Frame has written a thoughtful and sensitive paper on the subject. He also discusses the subject within the broad context of God's salvific purpose achieved through Christ, an approach which I found refreshing. For without that contextual perspective all suffering would prove meaningless. The paper was first published as "The Bible On The Problem Of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8, 21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39" in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, 1999.

___________________________________

For many today and throughout history, the problem of evil has represented the most serious objection to the Christian faith. Some very brilliant philosophers have thought that this problem conclusively refutes belief in the Christian God.

But not only professors of philosophy – ordinary people, too, often feel this problem deeply. You don’t have to be a sophisticated philosopher to doubt the reality of God when a loved one is going through terrible suffering. At such times the “problem of evil” is not so much a learned argument as it is a simple cry of the heart, “How could a loving God allow this?”

That’s it, in a nutshell. The sophisticated philosophical version of the problem states the issue, usually, with a calmer spirit and a more precise vocabulary. But the philosopher doesn’t state the question any better; and insofar as the philosopher dilutes the passion of that heart-cry, he misses something important. So we’ll leave it at the simple level. To understand, to feel the problem of evil, think of some terrible tragedy that seems to have no positive value whatsoever: the genocide of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot; a child suffering terrible pain as he slowly dies of cancer; an African baby dying of starvation. Think in such cases of how you too might cry out, almost involuntarily, “How could a loving God allow this?” You see, it’s not only unbelievers who cry out that way. Believers do too. There is something universally human about that cry. It’s almost a reflex. It’s something that goes very deep.

Is there an answer to the problem of evil? Well, that depends on what you mean by “answer.” What kind of “answer” are you willing to accept? If what you want is a total explanation of where evil came from, how it arose, how it achieves God’s good purposes, well, I cannot supply that. I don’t believe that this kind of answer is available to human beings, and I don’t believe that God is under any obligation to give us such an answer.

But if what you want is encouragement, a motivation to go on trusting God despite unexplained evil, then I think I can help. If you are looking for some assurance that God is all-powerful, just, good and wise, despite many temptations to disbelieve in him, I believe such assurance is available, and would like to share that assurance with you.

That assurance comes from the Bible, God’s Word. You might be a bit surprised to hear that the Bible speaks about the problem of evil. Sometimes, I think, we act and speak as if the problem of evil were a discovery of modern man. To be sure, the Holocaust was forty years ago; indeed there are many recent evils that trouble our faith in God. Yet none of us, probably, has suffered as much as Job, or the apostle Paul, or the heroes of Hebrews 11. Certainly none of us can possibly imagine the enormity of the sufferings of Jesus Christ. And none of us, probably, has reflected on suffering as deeply as did Job, Paul, or the Lord Jesus. Yes, the Bible says a great deal about the problem of evil. Large sections of the Bible are devoted to it. In fact, one might say that the whole Bible is about the problem of evil: it is the story of how evil entered a good world, and how God gained the victory over evil in Jesus Christ.

Paul’s letter to the Romans is a summary of that biblical story. It tells us about the sin of the human race against God, how none of us has kept God’s law, and thus that we all deserve to die: “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). None of us can earn his way to heaven by good works. But though we were without hope, God sent his own son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life, and then to lay down that life as our sacrifice: “God commended his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Christ’s work sets us free from the dominion of sin (Rom. 6), enables us to walk in the Spirit (Rom. 8), and motivates us to live a godly life (Rom. 12-16).

Romans tells us how we can become right with God. But it also tells us how God demonstrates his own righteousness. Romans 3:25-26 tells us that God gave us his son, not only to justify us, but to justify himself, to demonstrate his own righteousness. In other words, Romans addresses the problem of evil. Over and over again, throughout the book, Paul answers people who claim that God’s way of salvation is unjust. Paul’s answers can become our answers to the problem of evil, if we will take them to heart.

God is the Lord

Look first at Romans 3:3-8. Here Paul answers two objections. The first, in verse 3, deals with the unbelief of Israel, Paul’s own nation and the people of God in the Old Testament. The problem is that God promised to save Israel, to deliver them from their enemies and to fill them with wonderful blessings. But Israel refused to believe the promise, and disobeyed God’s law. Therefore, God rejected them; he said that Israel would no longer be his people. The objection is this, verse 3: Israel’s unbelief nullifies God’s promise. God judged Israel instead of blessing them – he was unfaithful.

The objection has some plausibility to it. After all, God did promise Israel some wonderful things, but it seems like all these promises went by the board. Now there is what we might call a “direct” answer to this question, and we’ll read about it later, in verses 21-26. But the interesting thing is that in this passage Paul does not give that direct answer. Rather, he rebukes the question in very sharp language: “God unfaithful? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written, ‘So that you may be proved right in your words and prevail in your judging’” (Rom. 3:4). Paul is saying, “Look, God simply cannot be unfaithful. If you say God is unfaithful, you lie – you are the unfaithful one. God always proves true. He always prevails when he judges someone. He is Lord. Who do you think you are, anyway?”

The next verses (Rom. 3:5-8) raise another objection, and handle it the same way: if Israel’s sin brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, then God ought to be pleased with sin, not angry. He shouldn’t judge sin, because sin brings him glory. Paul could respond more directly, but again, he does not give the direct answer. Instead, he rebukes the questioner again: “Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?” Then in verse 8 he says of the objectors that “their condemnation is deserved.” These are tough words against people who question God’s righteousness. Paul is saying that we have no right to raise doubts about God’s goodness and righteousness. Why? Because God is the judge, not we; he is the authority, not we. He is the standard of righteousness.

Most of us use dictionaries as standards for the spelling of words. We would not criticize the spelling in our dictionaries. How much less do we dare to criticize the righteousness of our holy God?

This is not pleasant, but such tough talk is pretty common in Scripture. Very often, when people in Scripture raise doubts about God’s goodness, rather than explain himself, God rebukes the questioners. Think of Adam and Eve after the fall, blaming their sin on the serpent and on one another, and ultimately on God. Why did God let the serpent into the garden anyway? God doesn’t reply; rather he judges them for their unbelief and disobedience. Think of Abraham, after the angel rescued him from having to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar. Does God explain this apparently unjust order? No. He merely commends Abraham’s obedience.

Think of poor Job, bereft of his family and wealth, his body full of sores. Job wanted an interview with God. He wanted God to explain why all these things had taken place. Well, Job got his interview, but it didn’t turn out the way he expected. God appeared to him (Job 38), and accused him of ignorant words. Then God announced that Job would not question God; God would question Job.

God asked Job questions about creation, the sea, the morning, light, snow, hail, stars, clouds, mountain goats, wild donkeys, ostriches, crocodiles. Job didn’t know the answers, and he confessed his ignorance. He laid his hand upon his mouth in shame and subjection. Who do you think you are, Job? God is the Lord of justice. How dare you ask an accounting from him!

This is hard to take. Like Job, we usually expect something else when we ask for an explanation of the problem of evil. This doesn’t even seem like an explanation. It is more like that old gag line, “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” But in this case, this is bitter medicine that we need to take. When we are faced with the problem of evil, we need to remind ourselves who we are and who God is. We are in no position to judge him, we have no right to demand an explanation from him. He is Lord. That is our first answer to the problem of evil.

God is the Savior

But there is more. God’s first intention in the Bible is to silence our doubting questions as we stand before his holiness and majesty. But thank God, Scripture does more than shut our mouths. If God only rebuked us, then we would be most miserable indeed, doomed to eternal death. That’s what Paul says about the law of God in Romans 3:19 – the law silences every mouth, making us conscious of our sin. But the law does not give us hope; it does not save us. Rebukes don’t save. We need them sometimes, but they give us no hope.

But Paul has more to say. God answers the problem of evil by saving us:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished – he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:21-26).

This is the good news, the wonderful story of Jesus. We could not be saved through keeping the law, so God sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sin – a free gift. We receive the benefits of this salvation through faith, by trusting Jesus as our personal savior and Lord. But what God is saying here is that this gospel, this good news, demonstrates his justice.

You see, if we may put this reverently, God in the Old Testament was faced with a problem. As we have seen, he promised Israel wonderful blessings. But Israel rebelled, disobeyed. What was God to do? If he punished Israel, he would have broken his promise – no more Promised Land, no more milk and honey. If he had fulfilled his promise, if he had simply overlooked their sin, he would have been unjust. It seems as though God could have been merciful, or God could have been just, but not both. Mercy would work against justice, and justice would work against mercy. Here the problem of evil comes up in a particularly difficult form. For even if you prove that God is just, you thereby prove that he is not merciful, and vice versa. So the problem can never be resolved.

So it seems in the wisdom of men. Men never could have dreamed of a way for God to solve this problem. But God found a way. The answer is in the cross of Jesus. At the Cross there is punishment for sin, a punishment God takes on himself. And therefore, at the Cross there is also an ocean of mercy that flows over God’s people. The Cross shows that God is just, and that he is merciful.

That is Paul’s – and God’s – second answer to the problem of evil. We know that God is just, because he has demonstrated his justice in history, far beyond any possible human expectations, in the cross of Christ. Now that doesn’t answer all our questions. Every day things happen that we still question. What about the Holocaust? What about children starving? How can these come from a just God? But when such questions arise, think back to the cross of Christ. For in the cross, God displayed his mercy in a way so wonderful that none of us could have anticipated it. When you think about that, you can understand how it will be a small matter for God to demonstrate his justice in all these areas that bother us.

God doesn’t answer us by satisfying our curiosity. Instead, he answers us by giving us a powerful motivation to believe, even when our curiosity is not satisfied. Thus we walk by faith, not by sight.

God is the Spirit

But now you may say, “Well, that may be all well and good, but I just can’t bring myself to believe it. That all sounds reasonable, and I can accept it with my reason, but not with my heart.” Scripture understands that need as well. God wants to respond, not only to your reason, but also to your heart. How does he do this? By giving us a new heart. Look at chapter five, the
opening verses:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into the grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us (Rom. 5:1-5).

When we come to know Jesus as our savior and Lord, we become new persons. Instead of hating God, we come to love him. Instead of hating other people, we come to love them. And God also puts into our hearts a new attitude toward suffering: we become able to rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces patience, character, hope. Suffering doesn’t destroy the Christian.

Rather, it helps him to mature, to grow more godly. And I think the word “hope” is also important here. The Christian looks forward to God’s promises of something better. We trust God that the sufferings of this present world are not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be revealed in us (Rom. 8:18).

How do we get these new attitudes? By the Holy Spirit, Paul says, which God has poured into our heart. How do we grow in these attitudes, in patience, character, hope through suffering? By asking God for a richer portion of the Spirit, and then by trusting him. Reckon yourself dead to sin (Rom. 6:11) – that includes unbelief, doubt, distrust, hopelessness. The Spirit does wonderful things for our spirits. Listen to Paul in Romans 8:28-39 – listen to his complete confidence in God’s goodness, justice and love.

This is the fullest answer to the problem of evil: a Spirit-filled confidence that God’s way is right and best:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all – how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? As it is written: For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Copyright©John Frame