Introduction
The “Problem of Evil” has long been presented as the most serious challenge to the existence of God. The argument, made famous by Epicurus and later Hume (Hume, 1779/1993), runs as follows: If God is all-powerful, He could prevent evil; if God is all-good, He would want to prevent evil; yet evil exists. Therefore, either God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or does not exist. But this formulation may not come from the Bible itself. Instead, it appears to derive largely from Greek philosophical categories later integrated into Christian theology by Augustine. What follows is a dialogue that re-examines the problem of evil by contrasting biblical self-descriptions of God with later philosophical abstractions.
⸻
Question: First, where does “God is all good & God is all-powerful” come from?
Answer: Not from the Bible directly. Scripture presents God as merciful, gracious, faithful, and slow to anger (Exod. 34:6–7, NIV). But Greek philosophy, especially Plato and Aristotle, described divinity as perfect, unchanging, and pure Good (Plato, Republic; Aristotle, Metaphysics). Augustine (354–430 CE), influenced by Neoplatonism, merged these ideas into Christian theology. He articulated God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (Augustine, Confessions, City of God). That fusion sharpened the problem of evil into a paradox.
Question: So what attributes does God give Himself?
Answer: In Exodus 34, God describes Himself as merciful, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. These are covenantal and relational traits. In Jesus, we see compassion (Mark 1:41), humility (Phil. 2:6–8), justice (John 2:15), and sacrificial love (John 10:18). These are not abstract perfections but lived, relational attributes.
Question: If we include Jesus?
Answer: Then the picture changes even more. Jesus reveals God as Father (Matt. 6:9), Shepherd (John 10:11), and Friend (John 15:15). The cross shows God not as impassible and distant, but as one who suffers with humanity (Heb. 4:15).
Question: With Jesus, the judge part vanishes with the cross.
Answer: Yes. In Christ, judgment is absorbed. God condemns sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3), not His children. The role of Judge transforms into Forgiver (John 12:47). The gavel falls, but it falls on sin and death themselves (2 Cor. 5:21).
Question: So now how is evil defined in the Bible, and how is that different from everywhere else?
Answer: Biblically, evil is rupture and corruption. The Hebrew raʿ can mean moral wickedness or calamity (Isa. 45:7). The Greek ponēros in the New Testament means malignant and corrupting (Matt. 6:13). Evil breaks covenant, destroys shalom, and rebels against love. In philosophy, by contrast, evil is often ignorance (Plato), privation (Augustine), or imbalance (Aristotle). In modern thought, evil may be radical selfishness (Kant, 1793/1998), social construction (Nietzsche, 1887/1998), or absurd suffering (Camus, 1942/1991). Psychology often reduces it to pathology or cruelty. The Bible is unique in presenting evil as active, relational, and personal.
Question: So one could say that by default when God created light, the flip side of the coin is darkness. So the question of the problem of evil needs clarification: whose problem is it?
Answer: Exactly. For philosophers, evil is God’s problem — a paradox: how can He be both all-good and all-powerful if evil exists? For Scripture, evil is humanity’s problem. It springs from the heart (Mark 7:21–23), from choices, and from rebellion. God’s role is not to explain evil but to redeem it.
Question: I also have a problem with people using “all good” when describing God, because that would nullify God being Love, which allows free will. The term tries to box God in.
Answer: Right. “All-good” is an abstraction that reduces God to a moral algorithm, a flawless super-computer. But love is relational and risky. Love allows freedom, even rejection (1 John 4:8). To call God “love” is larger and truer than to call Him “all-good.”
Question: All those omni sounds more like a super computer than a relational God. So now the problem of evil is only a problem when you allow Greeks to define the terms.
Answer: Exactly. In Hebrew thought and in Jesus, the “problem” isn’t a paradox for God but a fracture for us. The omni-God of Augustine creates the puzzle. The living God of Scripture and the cross enters evil, bears it, and redeems it.
⸻
Conclusion
The biggest biblical response to evil given in the bible, Jesus wept.
1. The Shortest Verse, the Deepest Response
• John 11:35 — “Jesus wept.”
• He doesn’t launch into a lecture on the nature of evil or a theodicy.
• Standing at Lazarus’s tomb, He knows He is about to raise him — yet still He weeps.
That is profound: God’s first response to evil and suffering is not an explanation, but solidarity.
⸻
2. What That Means
• Presence over proof: God does not justify Himself, He joins us.
• Compassion over control: Even with full power, He allows Himself to feel grief.
• Love over logic: The point isn’t solving the riddle, but sharing the pain.
⸻
3. Contrast With Philosophy
• The Greek omni-God cannot weep; He is impassible, beyond suffering.
• The Biblical/Jesus God does weep; His defining attribute is love, which makes Him vulnerable.
That’s why: the cross and the tears of Jesus are the Bible’s real “answer” to evil.
⸻
4. So the “Problem of Evil” Reframed
• Not: How can evil exist if God is all-good and all-powerful?
• But: How does God respond to evil?
• And the answer isn’t a theorem, but tears and a cross.
The problem of evil is not truly a biblical dilemma but a philosophical one. The Hebrew and Christian scriptures define evil as relational rupture, not as an abstract substance. God presents Himself not as an omni-perfect being but as merciful, faithful, patient, and loving. Jesus intensifies this by revealing God as Father, Shepherd , Friend, and above all Love. When God is defined instead through Greek categories of “all-good” and “all-powerful,” evil becomes an abstract paradox pinned on God. But biblically, evil is humanity’s fracture — and God’s role is not explanation but redemption. The problem of evil is only a problem when we let the Greeks write the dictionary.
⸻
References
• Aristotle. (1998). Metaphysics (J. Sachs, Trans.). Green Lion Press. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE)
• Augustine. (1998). Confessions (H. Chadwick, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 397 CE)
• Augustine. (1998). The City of God against the Pagans (R. W. Dyson, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published ca. 426 CE)
• Camus, A. (1991). The Myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Vintage International. (Original work published 1942)
• Hume, D. (1993). Dialogues concerning natural religion (J. C. A. Gaskin, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1779)
• Kant, I. (1998). Religion within the boundaries of mere reason (A. Wood & G. di Giovanni, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1793)
• Nietzsche, F. (1998). On the genealogy of morality (M. Clark & A. Swensen, Trans.). Hackett. (Original work published 1887)
• Plato. (1992). Republic (G. M. A. Grube, Trans., rev. C. D. C. Reeve). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published ca. 380 BCE)
• The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan.
⸻
Solving methodology
1. Framing Determines the Question
• Greek/Philosophical Frame:
Premise: God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
→ Question: How can evil exist if God fits this box?
→ Result: Endless shelves of “theodicies” trying to square the circle.
• Biblical/Relational Frame:
Premise: God is love (1 John 4:8), merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love (Exod. 34:6).
→ Question: How does a God of love respond to evil and suffering?
→ Result: The cross, God-with-us, redemption.
Once you accept the Greek premises, the problem is inevitable. If you stay with the biblical premises, the “problem” shifts — from abstract contradiction to relational tragedy.
⸻
2. Understanding the Premise
This is exactly your Discipline of the Question at work:
• If we start with a flawed or foreign premise (“God is omni-this and omni-that”), then every answer is boxed in.
• The real move is to scrutinize the obvious premise: Where did “all-good, all-powerful” come from? Is it biblical, or is it imported?
• Once you do that, the entire debate looks different.
⸻
3. The Power of Reframing
• Instead of: Why does God allow evil? (assumes omni-God, assumes evil is His problem).
• You ask: Whose problem is evil?
• Answer: It’s ours — a fracture of freedom, covenant, and love. God’s part is to redeem, not to justify Himself.
⸻