In philosophy and theology, there is an issue called “theodicy” or the problem of evil. The problem of evil has been stated and restated several times throughout history. Put very simply, if God is all-powerful and good, then why is there suffering and evil? In fact, these very questions and issues (among others) are the bulk of the Old Testament book of Job:

Job 9:22-24—“It is all one; therefore I say, ‘He destroys the guiltless and the wicked.’  23If the scourge kills suddenly,  He mocks the despair of the innocent. 24The earth is given into the hand of the wicked;  He covers the faces of its judges. If it is not He, then who is it?” (cf. Job 24)

Job 9:22-24—“It is all one; therefore I say,

‘He destroys the guiltless and the wicked.’ 

23If the scourge kills suddenly, 

He mocks the despair of the innocent.

24The earth is given into the hand of the wicked; 

He covers the faces of its judges.

If it is not He, then who is it?” (cf. Job 24)

Job’s statement, “It is all one” basically means “It’s all the same thing!” or “Then it doesn’t matter!” In other words, nothing matters because if God is not responsible for evil and suffering, then who is? Job’s struggle concerning God’s righteousness and wisdom in suffering—recognizing that God has a right to punish sinners (cf. Job 4:17)—especially as the sovereign and holy Creator, asks why God created man if only to suffer, why God would allow suffering seemingly disconnected from our actions (cf. Job 24), whether man can be right with God, and whether God can be justified and vindicated (cf. Job 9:2).

Stated other ways in the history of philosophy,

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?—Epicurus (341–270 BC), as quoted in John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd Ed. (Routledge, 1990), p. 310

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?—Epicurus (341–270 BC), as quoted in John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd Ed. (Routledge, 1990), p. 310

Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?—David Hume (1711–1776), Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Nelson Pike, (Indianapolis, IN.: Bobbs-Merrill Publications, 1981), p. 88

Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?—David Hume (1711–1776), Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Nelson Pike, (Indianapolis, IN.: Bobbs-Merrill Publications, 1981), p. 88

Briefly, the problem of evil is this: . . .If God knows there is evil but cannot prevent it, he is not omnipotent. If God knows there is evil but can prevent it but desires not to, he is not omnibenevolent.—George Smith, The Case Against God, (Buffalo, NY.: Prometheus Books, 1979)

Briefly, the problem of evil is this: . . .If God knows there is evil but cannot prevent it, he is not omnipotent. If God knows there is evil but can prevent it but desires not to, he is not omnibenevolent.—George Smith, The Case Against God, (Buffalo, NY.: Prometheus Books, 1979)

Over time, many have attempted to answer this argument and resolve the problem of theodicy (including this author), but theodicy in general is not the main point of this article, rather to present an issue for the Christian socialist and progressive and their conception of Jesus.

The problem that the Christian socialist must face regarding Jesus—assuming that this Christian believes what the Bible teaches about Jesus according to the historic Christian faith (i.e., supernaturalism, miracles, historicity, etc.)—is that He was and is capable of providing “universal healthcare” through divine healing and world hunger, but........

© Eurasia Review