In this essay, I will examine how Bernhard Anderson appropriates the topic of

theodicy in his work Contours of Old Testament Theology. Specifically, Anderson

approaches the issue of how chaos as an entity is not necessarily evil but is left open in

God’s ongoing creative process and he equates the idea of theodicy with the justice of

God as expressed in narratives of creation, Sodom and Gomorrah and wisdom literature

such as the book of Job. Anderson’s construction is founded in his emphasis on the

covenants present in the Old Testament and their importance to understanding the

presentation of theology in these scriptures. This presentation of theodicy has parallels

and points of disagreement with the more classical notions of theodicy as put forth by

figures such as Augustine, but Anderson adds his own component to the theological

understanding of theodicy present in the Old Testament. Finally, a conclusion will seek

to point out some unresolved questions and possible implications that Anderson leaves

open in his presentation.

“JUSTICE OF GOD” AND THEODICY

Anderson approaches the topic of theodicy in the context of creation. Anderson’s work is

focused on the covenants present in the Old Testament such as the Abrahamic, Mosaic

and Davidic and how these covenants play into later relationships between the people of

Israel (eventually Judah after the return from the exile) and YHWH such as the

development of the Torah, Wisdom literature, and the proto-apocalyptic found in books

such as Daniel. Anderson’s formula for laying out the developments of these covenants
is not meant to argue an implied supersessionism in the text, but rather to present the

covenants as agreements and understandings that ebb and flow with the passage of time

and as the people of Israel develop their understanding of self as well as understanding of

YHWH in history.

Due to this covenantal presentation, Anderson does not explicitly focus on the

topic of theodicy. When he does use the term, he frequently places it in parentheses

alongside the term “justice of God.” Otherwise, the most explicit mention of theodicy

deals with the book of Job. This presentation of the term itself gives a great deal of

insight into how Anderson understands the nature of evil in the covenantal structure he’s

constructed. First, it is clear that to Anderson, theodicy is a result of the process of

creation and covenant. This ongoing process of creation is one in which YHWH invites

humanity to become a participant. According to Anderson’s “justice of God” structure,

this participation allows for the introduction of human-caused evilness to affect the nature

of the ever-present chaos. Rather than the chaos itself being inherently evil, it is the

situation of evil present in the condition of free will that infects the creation. In this way,

Anderson is invoking a classic Augustinian framework to pin the existence of evil on

humanity’s sinfulness/evilness/original sin rather than on some deficiency present in the

nature (or justice) of YHWH.

TRIUMPH OF GOD

In Anderson’s construction of the ongoing process of creation, one of the main points of

his argument is the ultimate triumph of God as the Creator, regardless of the presence of
evil. To make his point clearer, Anderson makes a connection then distinction between

the Priestly writers’ Genesis 1 narrative with the creation story present in Psalms 104:

“In this psalm creation is not just a mythical event of the past when God
brought order out of chaos; rather, it is a continuing creation in which God
maintains the regularities on which all life, animal and human, depends.”
(269)

Anderson’s connection of the ever-present chaos with the ongoing process of creation

with the joining of Psalm 104 and Genesis 1 furthers his point that God is both

maintaining God’s all-powerful nature over the cosmos while also potentially inviting

humans to participate.

However, Anderson makes a clear distinction between Genesis 1 and Psalm 104

because the nature of resistance that is present in Psalm 104. Anderson points out that in

Genesis 1, there is no resistance to the creative actions (or sayings) of God. Instead, when

God issues a command, all of creation shapes itself accordingly without any further effort

needed on the part of God. And when those series of creative utterances are finished,

God surveys creation and says that it is very good. In other words, even chaos is

completely in God’s control.

So, where does Anderson see evil coming from in this construction? The

immediate Augustinian answer would be the natural world and its state of downfall after

the Fall has evil as a part of its character. Because of the Eden event, sin has entered the

world and all of creation suffers. However, Anderson resists this construction. As a

result, rather than placing the origin of evil on nature or God (which he can’t do if God is

ultimately and immediately victorious over chaos), he turns to the flaws of humanity

made explicit in the possibilities of free will. Anderson writes:

“Chaos persists in God’s creation and God continues to create. The

 biblical story, however, does not mention this violent face of nature. Even
the flood itself, which may be reminiscent of a natural calamity caused by
the rampaging waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, is regarded as a
sign of the severity of God’s judgment, not the caprice of nature. The
biblical story makes an uncomfortable point: the violence that corrupted
“all flesh” is traced to God’s noblest creatures, who were made in the
image of God. In creating human beings with an independent will and
with creative freedom, God risked the potential chaos that results
from human violence.” (93)

As a result, Anderson preserves the perfection as well as the immediate yet ultimate

victory of God over chaos and evil by placing the origin and ongoing perseverance of evil

on the fault of human beings acting with independent will and creative freedom.

However, Anderson has to accommodate the fact that the Old Testament witness

of YHWH does include points of departure from this Priestly origin of both the cosmos

and evil. He does this with the “justice of God” language as well as turning to the writers

of the wisdom material present in the Old Testament to argue, yet again, that God’s will

or supremacy cannot be called into question by a notion of theodicy.

JUSTICE AND WISDOM

Anderson’s treatment of wisdom literature necessarily follows his treatment of the

covenants he highlights as the key components to understanding Old Testament theology.

Therefore, Anderson approaches the wisdom material near the end of his book with the

establishment of God’s supremacy and otherness from humanity firmly in place.

“Israel’s reflective sages, however, set forth another approach to theodicy

[as compared to the traditional ontological philosophy he lays out
previously]. In their view God is not the highest Being but the Creator –
the God who is transcendent to, outside, and beyond the whole order of
being. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are God’s ways our ways;
therefore the problem of theodicy reaches beyond the capacity of human
 reason.” (277)

While this solves Anderson’s needs for keeping God sovereign and victorious, it

does little to solve the questions of human suffering he points to in texts such as Job. In

order to provide meaning on the question of human suffering, Anderson once again turns

to God’s otherness as well as his notion of the “justice of God:”

“The issue of theodicy, or the justice of God, had a peculiar poignancy and
intensity for Israel’s interpreters. For one thing, Israelite monotheism…
permitted no explanation that could shift the problem to an offense against
some deity other than Yahweh or to an unknown god. Theodicy was the
supreme price that had to be paid for a zealous belief in one God who,
somehow, is in charge of all events, whether for good or ill. Moreover,
Israelite monotheism did not allow for the view, expressed in some ancient
myths, that evil is intrinsic to the creation and has to be overcome again
and again if the divine order is to be maintained. According to the
creation story of Genesis 1, the creation is essentially good. It is creaturely
freedom, manifest especially in human beings, that poses a threat to God’s
creation. Given the essential goodness of God’s creation, why then do bad
things happen to righteous people, like Job?” (279-280)

On this point, Anderson turns to Job to discuss how and why the situation of

human created short fallings can and do impact all of creation. After discussing the

structure of Job, Anderson asserts that it is through wisdom and God fearing that we may

draw closer to the deity and remedy our fallen natures. Then, Anderson concludes his

brief treatment on the question of theodicy and human suffering by insisting on the

awareness that God does not act or think like humans. Anderson finds almost

sacramental reaffirmations of God’s glory in the closing chapters of Job and in the

wisdom corpus itself. Therefore, we are to turn to those scriptures and attempt to glean

insights in times of sufferings.

CONCLUSIONS
 So how are we to weigh Anderson’s treatment of theodicy? First, it is clear from

Anderson’s book that theodicy is to be viewed as a part of the concept of the justice of

God. This is an essential point for Anderson as he works throughout the often-disjointed

contents of his book to establish a notion of God’s supremacy and ultimate victory over

evil. However, the construction has a couple of problems that flow from his setup and

ultimately leave his theodicy component open ended and unresolved from a theological

perspective.

First, going off of the concept of theodicy being synonymous with the justice of

God raises the question of God’s sovereignty. Anderson repeatedly draws distinct

separations between God and humanity. Ultimately, his preference for the Priestly

writers’ Genesis 1’s theology of creation and insistence that evil becomes a component of

creation and chaos because of the open-ended nature of free will demands clarification.

If God is indeed sovereign, how would Anderson answer the charge of a sloppy creation

performance given the ability of evil to enter into the equation in the first place?

Accordingly, Anderson seems to suggest that God’s ultimate sovereignty is ultimately

limited by human freedom made available by this notion of free will.

As a result, if human freedom and humanity’s freedom to choose is directly

responsible for the introduction (and continuance) of evil in the cosmos, what does this

say about God’s ability to provide redemption through either a relationship based on

Torah observance? For Christians reading these texts, what does this human-driven

conception of drawing closer to God say about the nature of Christ? Is there theological

space for the ability of humans to draw closer to God and for God to act in a redeeming
nature towards humanity? Where does Anderson see the line between these two

scenarios?