<i>As far as I can see, the few places in the Bible that could potentially be theodicies end up with doxologies.</i>

<i>If you are a preacher, you are not God’s lawyer.</i>

Great lines AB, really good. I would also add that theodically-driven preaching is often not all that convincing, anyway.

My one hesitation is this. Theodicy remains the #1 issue people raise when confronted with the gospel. Look at the reaction to JAAL for evidence of that. How do we respond to that?

My one hesitation is this. Theodicy remains the #1 issue people raise when confronted with the gospel. Look at the reaction to JAAL for evidence of that. How do we respond to that?

I agree.  I’m reading through Tim Keller’s, “Reason For God” with a small group at church (believers and unbelievers).  I like his approach of thinking though the reasons that people have for unbelief and exposing the beliefs that underly them. 

Perhaps there is a way forward like this.  Preach on Revelation 14 and expose the objections people have with this passage and the evaluate their underlying beliefs.

That being said - we must not let any of our approaches twist God’s word.  I must admit that I have heard some of the great ones give theodicies for hell that turn it from something of which we should be scared to something that seems “reasonable” and tame and our choice.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for this helpful piece. I’ve been preaching a series on the cross of Christ this term, and still feel an infant with the issues involved.

I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about Romans 3:25-26? Espeically in relation to Habakkuk and the beginning of the section in Romans 1-3 (Rom 1:16-17) drawing on Habakkuk?

In Ex 34:6-7, when God reveals his glory to Moses, there is a tension left in God’s character as Yahweh with regards to his justice: he forgives wickedness, but doesn’t leave the guilty unpunished.

When Habakkuk raises this issue, Habakkuk ends in the same place you’ve suggested - doxology. But is there a sense in which God doesn’t question the question, but questions the timing of the answer? (Hab 2:3)

So when we get to Rom 3:25-26 the cross, as the demonstration of God’s justice, is the resolution of that tension: of how God can be just to forgive; of how God could have been just to overlook former sins. He doesn’t just display (make known) his justice, but he demonstrates it (actually provides atonement so as to be just in justifying the unjust).

But thinking about the cross as the display and demonstration of God’s character / glory (justice Rom 3:25, but love Rom 5:8), means that the cross also needs to define his love and justice.

In that sense, to pick up on your excellent imagery, God is his own lawyer, and the cross is the answer to his own story of redemption and the tensions posed by it. But never in that do I act as judge, but always stand under him: he teaches me what justice is, and he answers a question he himself was willing to leave hanging in the old covenant.

And in that imagery, I’m never his lawyer: he is always mine. As his messenger boy, I only ever stand as the recipient of his representation (and substitution!).

So my task as teacher is let him defend himself by making the gospel known: a gospel that doesn’t just demonstrate God’s justice, but teaches me what justice is?

But on the ‘where people itch’ issue (to pick up Craig - and Job!), I’m wondering if my task as the teacher/pastor is over time to take people through to the point where they can wrestle with this issue in a godly fashion: that may start out in anger, grief, denial, or even abstract presumptive speculation, but end in humility before God, and wrestle with the question with listening ears to what is said rather than demanding answers. That is, Job and Habakkuk don’t just teach me where I should be, but also helps me (and others) to get there?

Lots of thoughts half expressed - what do you think?

If you are a preacher, you are not (merely) a Bible reader.