JEHOAHAZ WAS TWENTY-THREE years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. 3The king of Egypt dethroned him in Jerusalem and imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 4The king of Egypt made Eliakim, a brother of Jehoahaz, king over Judah and Jerusalem and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But Neco took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt.
5Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD his God. 6Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him and bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon. 7Nebuchadnezzar also took to Babylon articles from the temple of the LORD and put them in his temple there.
8The other events of Jehoiakim’s reign, the detestable things he did and all that was found against him, are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. And Jehoiachin his son succeeded him as king.
9Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD. 10In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the LORD, and he made Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem.
11Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. 12He did evil in the eyes of the LORD his God and did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke the word of the LORD. 13He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him take an oath in God’s name. He became stiff-necked and hardened his heart and would not turn to the LORD, the God of Israel. 14Furthermore, all the leaders of the priests and the people became more and more unfaithful, following all the detestable practices of the nations and defiling the temple of the LORD, which he had consecrated in Jerusalem.
15The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. 16But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. 17He brought up against them the king of the Babylonians, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, old man or aged. God handed all of them over to Nebuchadnezzar. 18He carried to Babylon all the articles from the temple of God, both large and small, and the treasures of the LORD’s temple and the treasures of the king and his officials. 19They set fire to God’s temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.
20He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. 21The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.
Original Meaning
THE BABYLONIANS SACKED the city of Nineveh in 612 B.C. and then deposed the remnants of the Assyrian political establishment from Haran in 610 B.C. Thus Assyria’s reign of terror in the ancient Near East came to an end. This colossal event, one the prophet Jonah longed to see and the prophet Nahum eventually witnessed, did not really bring peace to the peoples of Syria and Palestine. The resulting vacuum of political power in the Levant was quickly filled, as Pharaoh Neco II of Egypt marched to Carchemish on the Euphrates River. He intended to join with the Assyrian ruler Asshur-uballit in a last-ditch attempt to repulse the Babylonians and help restore Assyrian control in the western sector of the disintegrating empire. King Josiah’s ill-fated attempt to intercept Neco at Megiddo only delayed the defeat the Egyptians experienced at Carchemish. Although the Egypto-Assyrian alliance failed to save the Assyrian Empire, Neco’s campaign did result in Egyptian control of Syria-Palestine. It is unclear whether King Josiah was obligated to oppose Pharaoh Neco II as a vassal of Babylonia or if he acted independently. In either case, his death meant the end of political autonomy for Judah. His successor, Jehoahaz, was dethroned by Neco and deported to Egypt. Neco placed Eliakim (or Jehoiakim), the brother of Jehoahaz, on the throne, and Judah became a vassal state to the pharaoh. Judah remained under Egyptian control until 605 B.C.
The Last Four Kings of Judah
Jehoahaz, son of Josiah |
three months, 609 B.C. |
exiled to Egypt |
Jehoiakim, son of Josiah |
609–598 B.C. |
deported to Babylonia briefly/ died in office (or assassinated?) |
Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim |
three months, 597 B.C. |
exiled to Babylonia |
Zedekiah, uncle of Jehoiachin |
597–587 B.C. |
exiled to Babylonia |
The Babylonian armies of Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar met Pharaoh Neco at Carchemish in 605 B.C. and routed the Egyptians. A short time later they dealt the Egyptians a second and more costly defeat near Hamath. The death of Nabopolassar and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylonia in 604 B.C. mark the emergence of a new superpower in ancient Mesopotamia. Given this new threat from the east, King Jehoiakim shifted his allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar, and Judah became a vassal of Babylonia in 603 B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 24:1).
King Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh Neco battled again in 601 B.C. The resulting stalemate between Babylonia and Egypt afforded Jehoiakim the opportunity to throw off the yoke of vassalage and rebel against Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian king was occupied with rebellion elsewhere in his kingdom and was unable to retaliate against Judah until December 598 B.C., the very month King Jehoiakim died.1 Jehoiachin succeeded his father as king of Judah but surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar after a three-month siege (2 Kings 24:10–11; 2 Chron. 36:9). Jehoiachin was deported to Babylonia along with the queen mother, other high-ranking officials, and numerous craftsmen and artisans (2 Kings 24:12–17). Jehoiachin’s uncle, Mattaniah (also called Zedekiah) was installed as a puppet king in his stead by the Babylonians.
Zedekiah was a weak king, unable to control the resurgent nationalism in Judah and apparently easily manipulated by the nobles and advisers around him. After a series of political missteps, Zedekiah finally rebelled against the king of Babylon in 589 B.C. The Babylonian response was swift and thorough. King Nebuchadnezzar lay siege to Jerusalem early in 588 B.C. The end came in July of 587 B.C., with the carnage so appalling and the devastation so sweeping that survivors could only sit aghast in silence as they mourned “the Daughter of Zion” (see the book of Lamentations).
This concluding section of the Chronicler’s narrative poses only minor interpretive problems. The only textual problem of note is the reference to the age of Jehoiachin when he becomes king (36:9). The majority of Hebrew manuscripts reads “eight,” but the NIV agrees with most commentators in correcting the scribal error by inserting the number “eighteen” cited in the ancient versions (cf. 2 Kings 24:8, which reads “eighteen”).
The identification of Zedekiah as Jehoiachin’s “uncle” is probably a case where the Hebrew word “brother” should be understood in the broader sense of “relative” (2 Chron. 36:10; cf. 2 Kings 24:17; this means the genealogy of Josiah in 1 Chron. 3:15–16 mentions two different Zedekiahs). There is no need to suspect the accuracy of the Chronicler’s report of Jehoiakim’s being bound in bronze shackles and taken to Babylon, despite the fact 2 Kings 24:1 does not mention the event. Perhaps Jehoiakim is required to go to Babylon to participate in Nebuchadnezzar’s victory parade as a conquered and vassal king (after the example of Manasseh during the reign of Esarhaddon of Assyria, 2 Chron. 33:11).2
The four brief accounts of the reigns of Jehoahaz (36:2–4), Jehoiakim (36:5–8), Jehoiachin (36:9–10), and Zedekiah (36:11–14) summarize the deadly game of “musical thrones” that sees the end of the kingdom of Judah. These four reports, totaling fourteen verses, are much less detailed than the parallel narrative in 2 Kings 23:31–24:20. A fifth report, the “obituary” of Judah, is an abbreviated account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians (2 Chron. 36:15–21; cf. 2 Kings 25:1–21; Jer. 52:4–27).
No doubt the compiler assumes his audience has knowledge of the earlier record, but this does not fully explain his haste to tell the story of Zedekiah and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The Chronicler’s reduction in reporting the material from 2 Kings indicates some special purpose in retelling Judah’s history. According to Selman, the reigns of the last four kings of Judah, compressed into a single presentation, underscore “the increasingly unstoppable threat of exile.”3 On a more positive note, it is also possible that the Chronicler’s brevity in treating the end of kingship in Judah is intended to highlight the exemplary reign of Josiah, “thus leaving a fresher memory in the reader’s mind of the possibility of faithfulness and blessing.”4
This final section of the Chronicler’s history is driven by both a documentary impulse (i.e., telling what happened) and the literary impulse (i.e., telling how it happened).5 The references to Jeremiah the prophet (36:12, 21) may indicate the Chronicler’s dependence on the book of Jeremiah as a source for this portion of his history. In any event, the repetition of the twin themes of the exile of the last Judahite kings and the repeated plundering of the Lord’s temple explains what happens to the kingdom of Judah (36:4, 6–7, 10, 18, 20). The descriptions of King Zedekiah (who does not humble himself and will not turn to the Lord, 36:12–13; cf. 7:14) and the priests and all the people (who are unfaithful, 36:14; cf. 30:8) illustrate how all this happens to Judah.
Curiously, the Chronicler fails to report the death formulas for the last kings of Judah as recorded in the Kings account (e.g., “and there he [Jehoahaz] died,” 2 Kings 23:34; and “Jehoiakim rested with his fathers,” 24:6; etc.). Kingship just fades into oblivion, as if the Chronicler seeks to represent the stories of the four kings as simply “different manifestations of the same phenomenon.”6 In so doing, the Chronicler offers his audience hope because he leaves open the possibility for the restoration of Israelite kingship as predicted by Jeremiah (Jer. 33:15–16) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 34:23).
Three important themes or emphases emerge from the Chronicler’s report concerning the last kings of Judah, the fall of Jerusalem, and the Babylonian exile. (1) According to Selman, the brevity of the narrative describing the reigns of the last kings of Judah indicates a special purpose in the Chronicles, namely, “the increasingly unstoppable threat of the exile.”7 The Chronicler’s acknowledgment of the inevitability of the Exile is important for two reasons. (a) It affirms the character of God as a God of justice (cf. Jer. 30:11; Nah. 1:3). (b) It prevents “spiritual paralysis” in the restoration community by defusing the “what if” questions that later generations might raise when looking back at the Exile and its aftermath.
The Exile is also a comprehensive punishment of Judah’s sins, in that there is “no remedy” for God’s wrath (36:16), and the “remnant” who escape the sword suffer exile (36:20).8 It is possible that the Chronicler has in mind Malachi’s understanding of divine judgment as a raging fire that both destroys the wicked and purifies the righteous (Mal. 3:1–4).
(2) The historian of 2 Kings identified Manasseh as the culprit responsible for the Babylonian exile (2 Kings 24:3–4). The Chronicler, however, extends blame to the entire nation, not to any one individual. King Zedekiah, the priests, and the people are all unfaithful to God and equally accountable for the fall of Judah (2 Chron. 36:14).9 The corporate interpretation of the Exile is a key component in the “all Israel” theology of the Chronicler. The culpability for the Exile belong to all Israelites, especially those generations from Kings Manasseh to Zedekiah.
Likewise, all Israelites are heirs of God’s promises for the restoration of Israel announced by the prophets. The Chronicler knows that his generation will be successful in obeying the word of the Lord only by recognizing their vicarious relationship to the tragic events of the past and the anticipated blessings of the future (cf. Rom. 8:17, “we share in his sufferings … that we may also share in his glory”). The general categories of sins attributed to the people (“detestable practices” and “defiling the temple,” 2 Chron. 36:14) serve as warnings to the Chronicler’s contemporaries. God’s people are always at risk of those things that are “idolatrous” (i.e., any substitute for God; cf. Jer. 7:9–11) and those things that are “irreverent” (i.e., any denial of God’s holiness; cf. Jer. 32:34).
(3) The Chronicler implicitly addresses the retribution principle conditioning the Mosaic covenant by noting the cause-and-effect relationship between Judah’s desecration of the temple (36:14) and the despoiling of the temple by the Babylonians (36:18). The response of divine blessing for obedience to the stipulations of God’s covenant and the response of divine judgment for violation of the same frame Israel’s relationship to Yahweh (Lev. 26; Deut. 28; cf. Paul’s teaching on “sowing and reaping” in Gal. 6:7–8). The references to God’s messengers and prophets further underscore the emphasis on the retribution principle in the Chronicler’s assessment of the fall of Jerusalem.
The blessings and curses theology of the Mosaic covenant is foundational to prophetic ministry because it is on this basis that these divine messengers forecast either blessing or judgment for God’s people (e.g., Isa. 1:10–20; Jer. 9:13–16). The series of participles describing the people’s response to the message brought by God’s servants (“mocking … despising … scoffing,” 2 Chron. 36:16 NRSV) suggests this is habitual behavior, making the rejection of the prophetic voice a theme in Kings and Chronicles (2 Kings 17:12–14; 24:2; 2 Chron. 24:19).
The Chronicler hurries past the last four kings of Judah to report the fall of Jerusalem for good reason (36:15–21). His audience knows all too well the tragic story of the sack of the city of David and the pillaging and destruction of Solomon’s temple. They do not need a reminder of the fall of Jerusalem as much as a statement of justification for the Exile. The Chronicler needs to guard against wrong thinking and bad theology, lest God be blamed for Judah’s calamity.
Essentially, the Chronicler offers his generation a twofold rationale for Judah’s expulsion from the land of the promise. (1) Both king and people have rejected God’s word spoken by his prophetic messengers (36:16). (2) The people of Judah have failed to keep the covenant stipulation of giving the land “its sabbath rest” (36:21; cf. Lev. 25:1–7). Here again the compiler assumes his audience has a working knowledge of the Torah and the Prophets in the intertwining of the covenant curse (Lev. 26:34) and the word of Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10).
More important theologically, the Chronicler understands the Exile as God’s work. The Lord himself brought the Babylonians against Judah and handed his people over to Nebuchadnezzar in fulfillment of the words of Jeremiah the prophet (36:17, 21; cf. Jer. 25:8–11; 29:10). It is of vital importance that the Chronicler affirm God’s faithfulness to his Word. The restoration period of Israelite history witnesses a shift away from divine revelation by means of prophetic utterance to priestly instruction based on previous revelation from God now inscripturated (e.g., Ezra’s exposition of the Torah, Neh. 8:1–3). The postexilic generation needs assurance that God keeps his Word, whether it be a word of blessing or judgment (Ps. 33:4–5).
Bridging Contexts
THE RETRIBUTION PRINCIPLE. This passage, perhaps more than any other in the books of Chronicles, illustrates the inherent instructional value of Old Testament history clearly recognized by Paul (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11). The topic of the Exile provides an entree for visiting any number of theological issues, given the magnitude and complexity of that catastrophic event in Hebrew history. Our study of this section of Chronicles will address a single subject, that aspect of divine judgment known as the retribution principle.
The biblical principle of retribution assumes predictable patterns of divine response to human behavior. In general, conformity to God’s expectations brings reward while disobedience to his commands results in punishment. God’s blessing or judgment of Israel is conditioned by her “faith quotient,” demonstrated by obedience to covenant legislation. These blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience were outlined for Israel as part of the covenant-renewal ceremony for that first post-Exodus generation of Hebrews (cf. Deut. 28). God’s response to corporate Israel and the nations generally was framed by the retribution principle. The poetry and wisdom literature of the Old Testament indicate this is also God’s primary method for dealing with individuals (e.g., Job 4:8–9; Prov. 11:5). In the New Testament, Paul summarizes the retribution principle with the popular proverb: “A man reaps what he sows” (Gal. 6:7).
But this is not the whole story. The divine judgment (or blessing) of Israel and the nations was clumsy in the sense that Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh resulted in a shared or corporate identity for the Hebrew people.10 As a covenant community, the “one” and the “many” in ancient Israel were inseparably related, as is illustrated in the story of Achan (Josh. 7). Sometimes this “shared identity” spanned generations, eventually engendering a certain fatalism among the Hebrews (e.g., Ex. 20:5–6; cf. Ezek. 18:1–2).
The New Testament extends the concept of shared identity to the church as a covenant community (cf. 1 Cor. 5). Ultimately, the application of the retribution principle in any specific historical context meant the righteous within the larger community were likely to share the same fate as the wicked in terms of divine judgment. Conversely, the wicked within the community may have shared the prosperity of the larger community in terms of divine blessing granted to the righteous. In either case, one might impugn God’s justice.
At times the Hebrews complained that the retribution principle was inoperative and that divine justice had been suspended (e.g., Hab. 1:2–4). On other occasions the faithful contended that the principle had been inverted—that is, the arrogant were blessed and the righteous were cursed (e.g., Mal. 3:14–15). These examples from the Old Testament prophets introduce a theological concept known as “theodicy,” a term applied to the efforts to justify the ways of God to humanity, especially in relationship to the problem of evil. Questions associated with theodicy, especially the reasons for the suffering of the righteous, are central to the story of Job. Theodicy is also an important theme in the laments of the Psalms, as the Hebrew poets pondered the prosperity of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 73:3).
The problems raised by theodicy are not peculiar to the writings of the Hebrews in the ancient world. The literature of the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians includes similar “Job” stories, reflections on the problem of evil and the experience of human suffering.11 The Old Testament actually advances numerous theodicies or explanations to justify God’s dealings with humanity, as summarized below:
1. Retributive—just punishment for sin (Gen. 3:16–19; 6:5–7; Deut. 30:15–19; cf. Gal. 6:7)
2. Disciplinary—corrective affliction (Deut. 8:3; Prov. 3:11–12)
3. Probationary—God’s testing of the heart (Deut. 8:2–3; Job 1:6–12; 2:10)
4. Temporary or apparent—in comparison with the good (or bad) fortune of others (Ps. 73; Jer. 12:1; Mal. 3:15)
5. Inevitable—a result of the Fall (Job 5:6–7; Ps. 14:1–4)
6. Necessarily mysterious—God’s character and plan are inscrutable (Job 11:7; 42:3; Eccl. 3:11)
7. Haphazard and morally meaningless—time and chance happen to all (Job 21:23, 25–26; Eccl. 9:11–12)
8. Vicarious—one may suffer for another or for the many (Deut. 4:21; Ps. 106:23; Isa. 53:3, 9, 12).12
At best these responses are only a partial resolution to a vexing theological puzzle. This is true because the ways of God remain mysterious and the mind of God is ever inscrutable (cf. Job 9:10; Isa. 55:8–9). The Scriptures do offer some consolation, however, in our endeavor to explain the ways of God in his creation. According to the psalmist, one important key to understanding theodicy is worship, especially prayer (Ps. 73:17). The Chronicler must have understood all this, since he brings perspective to God’s dealings with ancient Israel by framing his review of Hebrew kingship with an emphasis on prayer and temple worship.
Contemporary Significance
THEODICY. Reflective writings on the topic of theodicy are not limited to the Hebrew Bible or the ancient world. The topic remains central to religious and philosophical discussions grappling with the meaning of human existence. Theodicy, especially the retribution principle, raises theological questions about the existence of God and his justice, his goodness, and his omnipotence. Human suffering and the reality of death cut across the barriers of time, culture, and religious tradition. One relatively recent example is the popular book by Rabbi Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People.13
Rabbi Kushner’s personal odyssey into the “unfair distribution of suffering in the world” was prompted by a pediatrician’s diagnosis of his three-year-old son Aaron. Aaron was stricken with progeria, a condition known as “rapid aging.” An inexplicable and tragic illness, Kushner recalls learning from the doctor’s report that, “Aaron would never grow much beyond three feet in height, would have no hair on his head or body, would look like a little old man while he was still a child, and would die in his early teens.”14
The senselessness of his child’s malady drove Kushner to wonder about the justice of God and to question his fairness. Contemplation on his child’s misfortune caused Kushner to challenge his understanding of God as an all-wise and all-powerful parent figure, who rewarded good people and punished bad people. Specifically, Kushner tells us he doubted the equity of the retribution principle because “tragedies like this were supposed to happen to selfish, dishonest people,”15 not to rabbis following God’s ways and doing God’s work. Finally, the rabbi reasoned that even if he deserved punishment for some secret sin, why should God make his innocent child suffer in his stead?
Rabbi Kushner is to be commended for his honesty and his courage in addressing human pain and suffering, life and death—grappling “hand to hand” with theodicy out of his personal experience. Surely we as Christians could profit from this proactive Jewish approach to the “wrongs” of life that echoes the lament of the psalmist and the complaint of the prophet. Sadly, his humanistic conclusions are weak and misguided, informed more by popular psychology than by rigorous theology. Not only do they misrepresent God (the God of the Hebrew Bible), but also in the end they offer little hope to those struggling with the vicissitudes of this life. Essentially Rabbi Kushner concludes:
• God is a God of goodness and justice.
• God is not a God of power and might; there is a chaotic randomness in the universe that lies outside of God’s control.
• People turn to God for encouragement and comfort, not to be judged or forgiven, not to be rewarded or punished.
• Human beings are free moral agents fully responsible for their actions; God will not intervene to interrupt, overturn, or take away human freedom.
• The goal of religion is to remove the guilt of sin and failure and to help people feel good about themselves.
• The wrongs of life are the result of Fate, not God.
• Without the response of human love, God only exists as creator—not as God.
• Human beings respond to God in love not because he is perfect but because he is the author of beauty and the source of strength, hope, and courage.
• The purpose of religion is to help human beings forgive and love God when they discover he is not perfect.
The Chronicler, however, knows no such religion and no such God. One need only examine the petitions and doxologies in Chronicles to recognize that the Israelites of the Old Testament world prayed to a God uniquely different from the one to whom Rabbi Kushner prays. The prayers of David (1 Chron. 29:10–19) and Solomon (2 Chron. 6:14–42) reveal a God who:
• is the everlasting God
• is ruler of all the earth
• possesses all strength and power
• tests the hearts of his people to encourage integrity and loyalty
• hears and responds to the prayers of his people
• judges the guilty and establishes the innocent
• controls the elements of nature and circumstances of life
• upholds the cause of the righteous
• turns to those who turn to him and forgives their sin
This does not mean that the disturbing questions raised by a thoughtful discussion of theodicy simply evaporate once we recite a catechism of divine attributes. The Chronicler knows as much when he quotes David: “I am the one who has sinned.… What have they done?… Let your hand fall upon me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people” (1 Chron. 21:17). But it does mean that we as human beings may not devalue God because we cannot understand or completely explain the conundrum of why “bad things” sometimes happen to “good people.” As Job learned, the creature does not inherently possess (nor earn by righteous behavior) any “credential” entitling one to evaluate the Creator on his application of justice in a fallen world (Job 40:8; 41:11; cf. Isa. 55:8–9).
The Chronicler affirms the theological paradox taught throughout the literature of the Old Testament: Yes, God is Almighty, infinitely powerful (1 Chron. 16:25–26; cf. Ps. 89:8–18); and yes, God is Father, eternally good (1 Chron. 16:34; cf. Ps. 100:5; Isa. 9:6). So what does all this mean for the problem of evil, for theodicy? As Jehoshaphat came to learn, there are times when we can only acknowledge God as Judge and admit our own inability and powerlessness, ultimately trusting in the God of justice (cf. 2 Chron. 20:12).
Thankfully, the Christian has an advantage over the Old Testament faithful in the discussion of theodicy because we have “the rest of the story.” The record of the new-covenant fulfillment of the old-covenant promise offers at least a partial solution to the problems raised by theodicy in the form of biblical theology, especially in the area of Christology. For example, Job longed for an advocate from heaven who might vindicate him in his suffering (Job 16:19). The disciples of Jesus affirmed the realization of Job’s hope when they testified that they believe that Jesus came from God (John 16:30).
Interestingly, however, this Advocate from heaven does not decree the end of human suffering. Rather, he bluntly informs his followers that “in this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). This means the righteous should not necessarily expect to escape the problem of evil in this fallen world. Instead, they are assured God will uphold them in their suffering by the help of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 10:13; Rom. 8:9–11). Only a sovereign God of infinite power and eternal goodness is able to use human sufferings to cultivate godly virtues in the righteous that lead to the crown of life (Rom. 5:3–4; James 1:12).
Beyond this, the New Testament frames the discussion of human pain and suffering in the context of worship, broadly speaking. The prophet Isaiah recognized that God created human beings for the praise of his glory (Isa. 43:7). The apostle Paul provides insight on what it means for human beings to glorify God when he writes: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). For this reason Paul rejoiced in his sufferings (deserved or undeserved) because it was then that the power of Christ was manifest in his life as a testimony to the power of God in the world (2 Cor. 12:10). Another illustration is God’s choosing the weak, foolish, and lowly things of this world to confound the proud and induce faith in the humble (1 Cor. 1:27–29).
It is also important to remember that in addition to the response of biblical theology, Christian theologians and apologists have probed the questions raised by theodicy for centuries. One treatise especially helpful is The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis.16 Lewis offers at least partial answers to the intellectual problem raised by human suffering in an essay that addresses:
• the interplay of human free will with what he terms the relatively independent and “inexorable Nature” created by God, so that Lewis concludes: “To exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve … you find that you have excluded life itself”17
• the idea of divine goodness contrasted with human goodness, recognizing that the human notion of “kindness” is not coterminous with the biblical revelation of divine “love” and that love may cause pain because its object may need alteration to become fully lovable
• the reality of “original sin,” the abuse of free will that ruined humanity inherently, so that one can only speak of “good” people in the most relative of terms, given the present reality of a “corrupted” humanity, and that God’s goodness must sometimes be remedial and corrective
• the fact that divine “testing” through pain does engender faith and induce obedience in rebellious human beings, demonstrating “that the old Christian doctrine of being made ‘perfect through suffering’ is not incredible”18
• the admission that there is a paradox about “tribulation” in Christianity that ultimately finds its resolution in the Incarnation—that marvelous mystery of God becoming a human being, living among his own creatures, and suffering for them vicariously so that all sin, suffering, and pain might be abolished and God’s goodness might once again have full reign in his creation
Finally, according to Lewis, the Christian doctrine of suffering best explains the almost “schizoprehenic” nature of humanity that worships the material world and yet craves a better world. He concludes:
The settled happiness and security which we all desire, God withholds from us by the very nature of the world: but joy, pleasure, and merriment He has scattered broadcast.… Our Father refreshes us on the journey with some pleasant inns, but will not encourage us to mistake them for home.19