At East Valley International Church, we’re blending technology with theology, tapping Grok, an AI from xAI, to capture notes from our Sunday School. Pastor Joey Sampaga’s latest lesson dives into the origins of evil in the world and unpacks the contrasting Protestant and Catholic perspectives on Mary, the mother of Jesus, offering fresh insights into these timeless questions.
AI continues to demonstrate that it can serve as a reliable resource for modern Christians seeking to deepen our understanding of scripture and supplement our study of the Word.
The following PROMPT was used to ask about the theological explanation of the Origin of Evil.
PROMPT: Did God create evil?
From a Christian theological perspective, the origin of evil is a complex and multifaceted topic that has been debated by scholars, theologians, and philosophers for centuries. Here’s a concise explanation based on traditional Christian thought:
Evil is not something that God created directly, as everything God made is considered good (Genesis 1:31). Instead, evil arises as a consequence of the misuse of free will by created beings. The two primary sources of evil in Christian theology are:
1. The Fall of Satan: Evil first entered the universe through the rebellion of Satan (often identified with Lucifer), an angel who, out of pride, chose to oppose God (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-17). This event is understood to have occurred before the creation of humanity. Satan and the angels who followed him (demons) became agents of evil, seeking to thwart God’s purposes.
2. The Fall of Humanity: In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, the first humans, were given free will by God. Tempted by Satan (depicted as the serpent in Genesis 3), they chose to disobey God by eating from the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This act, known as the Fall, introduced sin and evil into the human condition (Romans 5:12). As a result, humanity’s relationship with God was broken, and the world became subject to corruption, suffering, and death.
Theologically, evil is often described as the absence or distortion of good (a concept rooted in Augustine of Hippo’s teachings), rather than a substance or entity in itself. God permits evil to exist as a consequence of free will, which allows for genuine love and moral choice, but He does not will it. Christian doctrine holds that God ultimately overcomes evil through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, offering redemption and the promise of a restored creation free from evil (Revelation 21:4).
This perspective emphasizes that while evil originates from the choices of created beings, God remains sovereign and works to bring good out of it (Romans 8:28), culminating in the defeat of evil at the end of time. Different Christian traditions may nuance this explanation, but the interplay of free will, the Fall, and Satan’s rebellion forms the core of the traditional view.
PROMPT: Explain how Isaiah relates to the question of the origin of evil.
The question of whether God created evil, particularly in light of Isaiah 45:7, is a significant one in Christian theology and requires careful consideration of both the biblical text and its broader context.
Isaiah 45:7, in the King James Version (KJV), states:
*”I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”*This verse can seem startling at first glance, as it appears to suggest that God is the direct creator of evil. However, Christian theologians and scholars have interpreted this passage in various ways to reconcile it with the broader biblical narrative and the nature of God as wholly good (1 John 1:5, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”).
Key Interpretations:
1. Translation and Meaning of “Evil”:
The Hebrew word translated as “evil” in Isaiah 45:7 is *ra’ah* (רָעָה), which has a broad range of meanings depending on context. It can mean moral evil (sin), but it can also mean calamity, disaster, affliction, or hardship—consequences rather than wickedness itself. In this verse, many scholars argue that *ra’ah* refers to God’s sovereign acts of judgment or natural disasters, not the creation of moral evil or sin. Modern translations reflect this nuance:
NIV: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”
ESV: “I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things.”
These renderings suggest that God is asserting His control over all aspects of existence—both blessings and hardships—rather than claiming to originate moral evil.2. Context of Isaiah 45:
Isaiah 45 is part of a passage where God declares His sovereignty over creation and history, addressing the Persian king Cyrus as His instrument to deliver Israel from exile. The contrast between “light and darkness” and “peace and evil” emphasizes God’s supreme authority over all dualities and outcomes in the world. The “evil” here likely refers to the judgments or calamities God brings (e.g., against Babylon) as part of His divine plan, not the moral evil associated with sin or Satan.3. Theological Framework:
Christian theology generally holds that God is not the author of moral evil (sin). As mentioned earlier, evil in the moral sense arises from the free choices of created beings—Satan and humanity—rather than from God’s direct creation. James 1:13 reinforces this: “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.” Instead, God’s role in “creating evil” (as per Isaiah 45:7) is understood as His sovereign permission or orchestration of consequences (e.g., punishment or natural disasters) within a fallen world, not the initiation of sin itself.4. God’s Sovereignty vs. Human Responsibility:
The verse underscores God’s ultimate authority over all things, including the outcomes of human actions. While He may “create” calamity as a response to sin or as part of His divine will (e.g., the plagues of Egypt), this does not mean He is the source of moral corruption. Rather, He works through a world already affected by the Fall, using even negative events for His redemptive purposes (Romans 8:28).Conclusion: Did God Create Evil?
From a Christian theological standpoint, God did not create moral evil (sin); that stems from the rebellion of free creatures. Isaiah 45:7, when understood in its linguistic and historical context, likely refers to God’s creation of calamity or judgment as an expression of His sovereignty, not the origin of wickedness. God remains perfectly good and just, and evil—whether moral or natural—is seen as a distortion or consequence within His creation, which He ultimately overcomes through Christ. This interpretation aligns with the broader biblical narrative while addressing the specific wording of the verse.
PROMPT: Explain why the King James Translators chose the word “evil” for this verse in Isaiah.
The choice of the word “evil” by the King James Version (KJV) translators in Isaiah 45:7—”I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things”—reflects a combination of linguistic, historical, and theological factors at play in early 17th-century England. To understand why they opted for “evil,” we need to consider the following:
1. The Meaning of the Hebrew Word *Ra’ah*
The Hebrew term *ra’ah* (רָעָה), which the KJV renders as “evil,” is a versatile word in the Old Testament. It can mean:
– Moral evil (sin or wickedness, e.g., Genesis 6:5),
– Calamity, disaster, or affliction (e.g., Jeremiah 42:6, where it contrasts with “good”),
– General adversity or harm.In Isaiah 45:7, the context suggests a contrast with “peace” (*shalom*, meaning wholeness, well-being, or prosperity), pointing toward *ra’ah* as calamity or adversity rather than moral wickedness. However, the KJV translators did not always distinguish sharply between these senses, as the English word “evil” in their time could encompass both.
2. The English Language in 1611
In the early 17th century, “evil” had a broader semantic range than it does today. Derived from Old English *yfel*, it could refer to:
– Moral wickedness (the modern primary sense),
– Misfortune, calamity, or suffering (a secondary but still common usage at the time).For example, in Shakespeare’s works (contemporary with the KJV), “evil” often denotes misfortune or harm, not just sin (e.g., “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to” in *Hamlet*). The translators likely chose “evil” because it was a flexible, catch-all term that could reflect the Hebrew *ra’ah*’s range of meanings, including calamity or judgment, without needing a more specific word like “calamity” or “disaster,” which were less common or carried narrower connotations.
3. Influence of Earlier Translations
The KJV translators relied heavily on prior English Bibles, such as the Tyndale Bible (1526) and the Geneva Bible (1560), as well as the Latin Vulgate.
Tyndale: Rendered Isaiah 45:7 as “I make peace and trouble,” avoiding “evil” and opting for a more neutral term.
Geneva Bible: Used “I make peace, and create evil,” aligning closely with the KJV.
Latin Vulgate: Translated *ra’ah* as *malum*, which also means “evil” or “misfortune” in Latin, influencing many English translations.The Geneva Bible, popular among the Puritans and widely used in England, likely shaped the KJV’s choice. “Evil” was a familiar term in religious discourse, and its use maintained continuity with existing translations, ensuring accessibility to readers.
4. Theological and Stylistic Preferences
The KJV translators aimed for a majestic, poetic style while staying faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts. “Evil” paired rhythmically and conceptually with “peace” in a way that “calamity” or “disaster” might not have, preserving the parallelism typical of Hebrew poetry (light/darkness, peace/evil). Additionally, they may have been comfortable with “evil” because they assumed readers would understand it in context as God’s sovereign acts of judgment, not as moral wickedness—a distinction more explicitly debated in later theology.5. Lack of Modern Precision
Unlike modern translations (e.g., NIV’s “disaster” or ESV’s “calamity”), the KJV translators did not prioritize disambiguating *ra’ah*’s meaning for every instance. They often retained the ambiguity of the original Hebrew, leaving interpretation to the reader or preacher. In 1611, the theological nuance that God does not create moral evil but may send calamity was widely understood within Christian teaching, so “evil” didn’t necessarily imply a contradiction with God’s goodness to their audience.Why “Evil” Specifically?
The translators likely chose “evil” because:
– It was a broad, flexible English word in 1611 that could cover both moral and natural adversity, mirroring *ra’ah*’s range.
– It aligned with the Geneva Bible and Latin Vulgate, maintaining tradition.
– It fit the poetic and rhetorical style of the KJV.
– The context of God’s sovereignty in Isaiah 45 made it clear to their audience that this “evil” referred to divine judgment or hardship, not sinfulness originating from God.In hindsight, “evil” may seem misleading to modern readers accustomed to its narrower moral connotation, which is why newer translations opt for “calamity” or “disaster.” But for the KJV translators, “evil” was a natural and defensible choice given their linguistic and historical context.
PROMPT: Provide other key references that would refute the claim that God created evil.
Isaiah 45:7—”I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (KJV)—can seem “unfortunate” or troubling to some because it appears to attribute the creation of evil to God, challenging the notion of His perfect goodness. However, as discussed earlier, the Hebrew word *ra’ah* (translated “evil” in the KJV) often refers to calamity or judgment rather than moral evil (sin). Still, Christians often look to other Bible passages to clarify God’s nature and relationship to evil, ensuring a consistent theological understanding. Below are key references that refute the idea that God is the author of moral evil and provide a broader context to address the potential misunderstanding of Isaiah 45:7:
1. God’s Goodness and Holiness
1 John 1:5:
*”This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”* (KJV)
This verse explicitly states that God is pure light, with no trace of darkness (moral evil or corruption). It underscores His holiness, suggesting that any “evil” attributed to Him in Isaiah 45:7 cannot mean sinfulness.Psalm 5:4:
*”For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.”* (KJV)
Here, “evil” (also *ra’ah* in Hebrew) refers to wickedness, and the verse asserts that God has no delight in it nor can it coexist with His nature, distancing Him from being its source.Habakkuk 1:13:
*”Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity…”* (KJV)
God’s purity is so absolute that He cannot even tolerate looking at evil (sin). This reinforces that He does not originate moral evil.2. God Does Not Tempt or Cause Sin
James 1:13-14:
*”Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”* (KJV)
This passage explicitly denies that God is the source of temptation or moral evil. Instead, it places responsibility on human desires, aligning with the view that sin arises from free will, not divine action.James 1:17:
*”Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”* (KJV)
God is described as the source of only good and perfect things, unchanging in His nature, further refuting the idea that He creates moral evil.3. The Origin of Moral Evil Lies Elsewhere
Genesis 3:1-6:
The account of the Fall shows that evil (sin) entered the world through the serpent’s temptation and humanity’s choice to disobey God, not through God’s creation. The serpent (often identified with Satan) and human free will are the catalysts, not God’s will.John 8:44:
*”Ye are of your father the devil… He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”* (KJV)
Jesus attributes the origin of lies and murder (forms of moral evil) to Satan, not God, establishing the devil as the instigator of sin.4. God’s Sovereignty Over Calamity, Not Sin
Amos 3:6:
*”Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?”* (KJV)
Here, “evil” (*ra’ah*) again refers to calamity or disaster (e.g., judgment on a city), not moral evil. This aligns with Isaiah 45:7’s context, where God claims sovereignty over events like prosperity and adversity, not the creation of sin.Lamentations 3:38:
*”Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?”* (KJV)
Similar to Isaiah, this refers to God’s control over outcomes—good fortune and calamity—as part of His divine authority, not moral wickedness.Reconciling Isaiah 45:7 with These Verses
These references collectively clarify that:
– God is not the author of moral evil (sin), which stems from the free choices of Satan and humanity (Genesis 3, John 8:44, James 1:13-14).
– The “evil” in Isaiah 45:7 likely refers to calamity or judgment, over which God exercises sovereign control (Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38), not sinfulness.
– God’s nature is unequivocally good, holy, and opposed to wickedness (1 John 1:5, Psalm 5:4, Habakkuk 1:13), ensuring that any action He takes (even judgment) aligns with His justice and redemptive purposes.Thus, these verses don’t contradict Isaiah 45:7 but refine its meaning. They refute the misinterpretation that God creates moral evil, showing instead that He permits or ordains calamity within His sovereign plan while remaining untainted by sin. This harmonizes the “unfortunate” phrasing of the KJV with the broader biblical portrayal of God’s character.
PROMPT: Write a short study of Luke 1:38.
Study of Luke 1:38
Text (ESV): And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.Context: Luke 1:38 sits within the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38), where Gabriel announces to Mary, a virgin in Nazareth, that she will bear Jesus, the Son of God, through the Holy Spirit. This follows Gabriel’s assurance, including the sign of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. Mary, likely a young teen, responds in verse 38 after asking how this could occur (v. 34), marking her acceptance of God’s plan.
Analysis:
“Behold, I am the servant of the Lord”: The Greek doulē (“servant” or “slave”) signals Mary’s complete submission to God. “Behold” (idou) emphasizes her readiness, presenting herself as a willing instrument. This echoes figures like Samuel (1 Samuel 3:4) who answered God’s call with openness.
“Let it be to me according to your word”: In Greek, genoito moi kata to rhēma sou expresses consent in the optative mood—active agreement, not passive fate. Mary trusts Gabriel’s message despite the cultural peril of unwed pregnancy, which could lead to disgrace or worse in her society.
Theological Depth: Known as Mary’s fiat, this response enables the Incarnation, contrasting Zechariah’s doubt (Luke 1:18) and prefiguring Jesus’ surrender (Luke 22:42). It blends divine sovereignty with human choice, initiating God’s redemptive work.Implications:
Faith and Trust: Mary’s words model unwavering belief in God’s promise, even amid uncertainty, encouraging believers to blend inquiry (v. 34) with surrender.
Humility: Her lowly status as a “servant” highlights God’s favor toward the humble (Luke 1:52), a recurring biblical theme.
Redemptive Role: By agreeing, Mary fulfills prophecy (e.g., Isaiah 7:14), launching the Gospel’s narrative arc.
Reflection: Luke 1:38 distills a monumental act of faith into a simple declaration. Mary’s “let it be” is both submission and strength, inviting us to ponder our own response to divine disruption. In her humble “yes,” the world shifts—a quiet pivot with eternal echoes.Tying It to Isaiah 45:7
If we connect Luke 1:38 to Isaiah 45:7, the link lies in God’s sovereignty. Isaiah 45:7 asserts God’s control over all things—light, darkness, peace, and calamity—as part of His divine authority. Luke 1:38 shows that same sovereignty at work in a redemptive act: God orchestrates the Incarnation to address the consequences of evil, using Mary’s free assent. While Isaiah 45:7 might imply God “creates evil” (calamity), Luke 1:38 reveals His greater purpose—to eradicate moral evil through Christ. The “evil” of judgment or hardship (e.g., the exile context of Isaiah) is temporary and subordinate to the eternal good initiated in Luke.Conclusion
Luke 1:38 complements Isaiah by showcasing God’s sovereign goodness in action. It highlights:
– Free will used rightly, not to create evil but to partner with God’s redemptive plan.
– The Incarnation as God’s ultimate answer to evil, distinct from His role in permitting calamity.
– A contrast to the origin of evil, emphasizing obedience over rebellion.In this way, Luke 1:38 doesn’t negate Isaiah’s claim of divine authority over all things but reframes it within the narrative of salvation, where God’s power ultimately triumphs over the evil that free creatures introduced. If you had a more specific connection in mind, feel free to clarify!
PROMPT: How might John 19:25-27 apply to the discussion of the origin of evil?
Let’s explore how John 19:25-27 might apply to our ongoing discussion about the origin of evil, God’s nature, and the theological questions surrounding Isaiah 45:7 (“I make peace, and create evil”). While John 19:25-27 doesn’t directly address the origin of evil, it can be analyzed within the broader Christian narrative of redemption and God’s response to evil, which ties into our conversation.
Text and Context of John 19:25-27
Verses (KJV):
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”*
Context: This passage occurs during Jesus’ crucifixion, a climactic moment in the Gospels. As Jesus hangs on the cross, suffering and nearing death, He entrusts His mother, Mary, to the care of the “disciple whom he loved” (traditionally John). This act demonstrates Jesus’ concern for His mother’s well-being even amid His own agony, fulfilling His human responsibility as a son while accomplishing His divine mission.Analysis in Relation to the Discussion
Here’s how John 19:25-27 might connect to our exploration of evil’s origin and God’s relationship to it:1. The Cross as God’s Response to Evil:
Our discussion has established that moral evil (sin) originates from the misuse of free will by Satan and humanity (Genesis 3, John 8:44), not from God, despite Isaiah 45:7’s reference to God creating “evil” (likely calamity). John 19:25-27 occurs at the crucifixion, which Christian theology views as God’s definitive answer to moral evil. Jesus’ death atones for sin (Romans 5:8, 1 John 2:2), defeating the power of evil introduced by the Fall. The presence of Mary and the beloved disciple at the cross underscores the personal, relational cost of this victory over evil, contrasting with its impersonal origin in rebellion.2. God’s Sovereignty and Redemptive Purpose:
Isaiah 45:7 highlights God’s sovereignty over light/darkness and peace/calamity, which can include the “evil” of suffering or judgment. The crucifixion in John 19 is an instance where God permits profound suffering—Jesus’ death—yet transforms it into the means of salvation. Jesus’ care for Mary in vv. 25-27 shows that even in this moment of apparent “evil” (suffering and death), God’s goodness shines through. The cross doesn’t suggest God creates moral evil but demonstrates how He sovereignly uses even the worst circumstances (crucifixion by human sinfulness) for redemption, aligning with Luke 1:47’s portrayal of God as “Saviour.”3. Humanity’s Role and Evil’s Consequences:
The crucifixion results from human sin—Judas’ betrayal, the crowd’s rejection, and Roman injustice—reflecting the free-will choices that birthed evil (James 1:14-15). Yet, Jesus’ act of entrusting Mary to John reveals a relational restoration amid evil’s chaos. It contrasts with the division evil causes (e.g., Cain and Abel, Genesis 4) and shows God incarnate mending human bonds, countering evil’s destructive legacy.4. Mary’s Presence and the Reversal of the Fall:
Mary’s role at the cross ties back to Luke 1:38 (“be it unto me according to thy word”) and Luke 1:47 (“God my Saviour”). Often called the “New Eve” in Christian tradition, Mary’s faithful presence at the crucifixion complements her earlier obedience, standing in solidarity with Jesus’ sacrifice. This contrasts with Eve’s disobedience, which introduced sin (Genesis 3). John 19:25-27 thus indirectly relates to evil’s origin by showcasing Mary’s participation in God’s plan to undo it, reinforcing that evil stems from creaturely rebellion, not divine intent.5. Theological Nuance on Evil:
If Isaiah 45:7’s “evil” refers to calamity (as supported by Amos 3:6), the suffering of the cross could be seen as a divinely permitted “evil” (in the sense of affliction). Yet, John 19:25-27 emphasizes that this suffering serves a higher good—salvation and care for humanity—refuting any notion that God’s actions are malevolent. Jesus’ compassion for Mary underscores His divine love, aligning with 1 John 1:5 (“in him is no darkness at all”) and distancing God from moral evil’s authorship.Applicability to the Discussion
John 19:25-27 is applicable in these ways:
Redemption Over Evil: It illustrates God’s triumph over moral evil through the cross, addressing the problem Isaiah 45:7 might raise about God’s relation to “evil.” The crucifixion doesn’t imply God creates sin but shows Him overcoming it.
Sovereignty in Suffering: It reflects God’s control even in calamity (the “evil” of the cross), using it for a salvific purpose, consistent with Isaiah’s portrayal of divine authority.
Human-Divine Partnership: Jesus’ care for Mary echoes Mary’s earlier trust in God (Luke 1:38, 1:47), showing how human faithfulness collaborates with God’s plan to mitigate evil’s effects, unlike the rebellion that caused it.Conclusion
John 19:25-27 doesn’t directly refute Isaiah 45:7 but enriches our discussion by depicting the crucifixion as God’s redemptive response to evil, not its source. It highlights Jesus’ love and sovereignty amid suffering, reinforcing that moral evil originates from free will (not God), while any “evil” God “creates” (calamity, per Isaiah) serves His ultimate good. Mary’s presence ties this to her earlier role, framing the cross as the antidote to the Fall. Thus, it’s applicable as a powerful testament to God’s character and purpose in the face of evil’s reality. If you had a more specific angle in mind, let me know!
PROMPT: Apply Colossians 1:24 to our discussion.
Let’s review Colossians 1:24 and explore its relevance to our ongoing discussion about the origin of evil, God’s nature, and the theological implications of verses like Isaiah 45:7 (“I make peace, and create evil”). I’ll analyze the verse in its context and connect it to the themes we’ve been examining.
Text and Context of Colossians 1:24
Verse (KJV):
“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’sLet’s continue exploring Colossians 1:24 and its implications within our discussion about the origin of evil, God’s relationship to it (per Isaiah 45:7), and the broader Christian theological framework we’ve been building with verses like Luke 1:38, Luke 1:47, and John 19:25-27. I’ll deepen the analysis of Colossians 1:24 and connect it further to these themes, while also considering additional angles that might enrich our understanding.
Deeper Analysis of Colossians 1:24
Text (KJV): *”Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.”*1. Rejoicing in Sufferings: A Paradoxical Response to Evil
Paul’s statement, “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you,” introduces a striking paradox. In a world where evil—whether moral (sin) or natural (suffering)—causes pain, Paul finds joy in affliction. This doesn’t mean he delights in evil itself but in its redemptive purpose. Christian theology often frames suffering as a consequence of the Fall (Genesis 3:16-19), yet Paul’s attitude reflects a transformation of that “evil” (affliction) into something meaningful. This ties to Isaiah 45:7: if God “creates evil” as calamity, Colossians 1:24 suggests He also provides a framework for believers to endure and even rejoice in it, not as its source but as its sovereign overseer who bends it toward good.Connection: Compare this to Romans 5:3-4 (KJV): “We glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope.”* Paul’s rejoicing aligns with God’s character as a redeemer (Luke 1:47, “God my Saviour”), not a malevolent creator of sin.
2. “That Which Is Behind of the Afflictions of Christ”
The phrase “fill up that which is behind” (Greek: *antanaplēroō ta hysterēmata*) has sparked theological debate. It doesn’t imply Christ’s atoning death lacked anything—His sacrifice was complete (John 19:30, “It is finished”). Instead, it likely refers to:
Ongoing Ministry: The “afflictions” are the hardships Christ’s followers endure as they carry His message into a hostile world. Paul’s sufferings extend Christ’s presence through the church.
Mystical Union: Christians participate in Christ’s sufferings (Philippians 3:10, “the fellowship of his sufferings”), not to add to atonement but to embody it.This connects to evil’s origin: moral evil (sin) from free will (James 1:14-15) leads to a fallen world where suffering exists. God doesn’t initiate this evil, but Colossians 1:24 shows Him using it through believers’ lives to advance redemption, contrasting with Satan’s role as sin’s instigator (John 8:44).
Connection: John 19:25-27’s scene at the cross—Mary and John enduring Christ’s suffering—parallels Paul’s participation here. Both reflect a human role in God’s plan amid evil’s effects.
3. “In My Flesh for His Body’s Sake”
Paul’s physical sufferings (“in my flesh”)—beatings, imprisonment (2 Corinthians 11:23-27)—are borne for the church, Christ’s body. This sacrificial act mirrors Jesus’ own suffering (John 19) and Mary’s faithful submission (Luke 1:38). It suggests that while evil (sin) fractured humanity, God’s response through Christ and His followers restores community. The church, as Christ’s body, becomes a living testament to God’s triumph over evil, not its creation.Connection: Isaiah 45:7’s “evil” (calamity) might include such sufferings, but Colossians 1:24 frames them as purposeful, not arbitrary, aligning with God’s goodness (1 John 1:5).
Broader Theological Ties
Let’s weave Colossians 1:24 more explicitly into our discussion:1. Evil’s Origin and God’s Non-Culpability:
We’ve established that moral evil arises from free will (Satan, humanity), not God, despite Isaiah 45:7’s phrasing. Colossians 1:24 reinforces this by showing suffering as a post-Fall reality God redeems, not initiates. Paul’s afflictions stem from human opposition to the gospel (sin’s fruit), not divine malice, echoing James 1:13 (“God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man”).2. Sovereignty Over Evil:
Isaiah 45:7 asserts God’s control over all conditions—peace and calamity. Colossians 1:24 extends this sovereignty into the New Testament: God permits Paul’s sufferings (a form of “evil” as affliction) and uses them to build the church. This mirrors the cross (John 19), where God transforms the ultimate “evil” (crucifixion) into salvation, and Mary’s joy in her Saviour (Luke 1:47), who overcomes sin’s power.3. Human Participation in Redemption:
Like Mary’s “yes” (Luke 1:38) and her presence at the cross (John 19:25-27), Paul’s sufferings in Colossians 1:24 show humans partnering with God to address evil’s consequences. This contrasts with the rebellion that birthed evil (Genesis 3). God doesn’t create moral evil but invites believers to join in its defeat, turning affliction into a witness of His grace.4. The Church as Evidence of Victory:
The church,受益 from Paul’s sufferings, embodies Christ’s ongoing work against evil. Colossians 1:20 (KJV) states Christ reconciles “all things unto himself… by the blood of his cross.” Paul’s afflictions “fill up” this mission, proving that even the “evil” of suffering serves God’s redemptive end, not its origin.Additional Biblical Reinforcement
2 Corinthians 4:8-10 (KJV): “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed… always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.”* Paul’s sufferings manifest Christ’s life, aligning with Colossians 1:24’s redemptive view of affliction.
1 Peter 4:13 (KJV): “Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”* This echoes Paul’s joy, framing suffering as participation in Christ’s victory over evil.Conclusion
Colossians 1:24 deepens our discussion by portraying suffering—a form of “evil” akin to Isaiah 45:7’s calamity—as a tool God uses, not creates as sin. Paul’s rejoicing and sacrificial ministry for the church reflect God’s sovereignty and goodness, countering evil’s origin in free-will rebellion with a redemptive response. It ties to Luke 1:38 and 1:47 (Mary’s obedience and joy in salvation), John 19:25-27 (the cross’s relational care), and the broader narrative where God triumphs over evil without being its moral source. Paul’s afflictions become a bridge between Christ’s finished work and its ongoing application, reinforcing that God redeems, not initiates, the world’s brokenness.
PROMPT: Examine this Catholic source and provide a well-reasoned Protestant Biblical response that refutes Mary’s preservation from sin, the Assumption, interceding for us in heaven, praying for our needs and guiding us towards God, and the Catholic belief that Mary is a “Mediatrix,” or a go-between, helping Christians approach God through Jesus. Utilize ESV and introduce modern theological thought.
Examination of the Catholic Source
The article “Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin” by Tim Staples (Catholic Answers, accessed April 6, 2025) defends Catholic Marian doctrines, particularly the Immaculate Conception, declared dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854. It argues:Immaculate Conception: Mary was preserved from original sin at conception, based on Luke 1:28 (“full of grace,” Greek kecharitōmenē), interpreted as a state of sinless perfection, and Genesis 3:15’s enmity between the woman and the serpent.
Assumption: Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven is implied by her sinlessness and Revelation 12:1’s “woman clothed with the sun.”
Intercession and Guidance: Mary intercedes in heaven, prays for humanity’s needs, and guides believers to God, rooted in her role at Cana (John 2:1-11) and tradition.
Mediatrix: Mary mediates grace between God and man, subordinate to Christ, supported by her cooperation in the Incarnation (Luke 1:38) and historical Church teaching.
The article leans on typology (Mary as the New Eve), tradition (e.g., Irenaeus), and papal authority, rather than direct scriptural mandates, to build its case.Protestant Biblical Response
Protestant theology, grounded in sola scriptura (Scripture alone), rejects these Catholic claims as unbiblical extrapolations lacking explicit textual support. Below is a refutation of each point, using ESV and modern theological insights.1. Preservation from Sin (Immaculate Conception)
Catholic Claim: Mary was conceived without original sin, uniquely “full of grace” (Luke 1:28).
Protestant Refutation:Scriptural Evidence: Romans 3:23 states, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” No exception is made for Mary. Luke 1:47 has Mary say, “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,” implying her need for salvation, not sinlessness. The Greek kecharitōmenē (“favored one” or “highly favored”) in Luke 1:28 denotes God’s grace bestowed, not an inherent sinless state—similar to Ephesians 1:6’s echaritōsen for all believers.
Modern Theology: Scholars like N.T. Wright emphasize that sin’s universality (Romans 5:12) applies to all humanity, including Mary. The Immaculate Conception relies on tradition (e.g., Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus), not Scripture, and modern Protestantism sees it as an unnecessary elevation of Mary beyond biblical warrant.2. The Assumption
Catholic Claim: Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, inferred from her sinlessness and Revelation 12:1.Protestant Refutation:
Scriptural Evidence: No biblical text records Mary’s assumption. Revelation 12:1’s “woman” is widely interpreted by Protestants as symbolic—Israel, the Church, or God’s people—not Mary individually (cf. Genesis 37:9-10’s celestial imagery for Jacob’s family). Hebrews 9:27 applies to all: “it is appointed for man to die once,” with no exception for Mary.
Modern Theology: Contemporary scholars like Wayne Grudem argue the Assumption lacks historical or biblical attestation, emerging late (5th century) and formalized in 1950 (Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus). It’s a tradition-driven doctrine, not a scriptural one, and Protestantism rejects it as speculative.3. Interceding in Heaven, Praying for Needs, Guiding Us
Catholic Claim: Mary intercedes, prays, and guides from heaven, based on Cana (John 2:3) and tradition.Protestant Refutation:
Scriptural Evidence: 1 Timothy 2:5 declares, “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”—no co-intercessors. Hebrews 7:25 says Jesus “always lives to make intercession” for us, leaving no role for Mary. John 2:3 shows Mary’s earthly concern, but nothing suggests she intercedes post-mortem. Prayer to saints lacks biblical precedent; the dead are not depicted as hearing us (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6).
Modern Theology: Theologians like John MacArthur argue that assigning Mary an intercessory role diminishes Christ’s sufficiency. Modern Protestantism critiques this as a holdover from pagan mediator cults, unsupported by Scripture’s focus on direct access to God (Hebrews 4:16).4. Mary as Mediatrix
Catholic Claim: Mary mediates grace between God and humanity, subordinate to Christ, per Luke 1:38 and tradition.Protestant Refutation:
Scriptural Evidence: Luke 1:38 (“let it be to me according to your word”) shows Mary’s obedience, not mediation. Christ alone bridges God and man (John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”). Acts 4:12 reinforces this: “there is salvation in no one else.” Mary’s role in the Incarnation is historical, not ongoing.
Modern Theology: Scholars like R.C. Sproul reject “Mediatrix” as an accretion that muddies Christ’s unique priesthood (Hebrews 9:15). Modern Protestantism sees this as a theological overreach, elevating Mary to a quasi-divine status absent in the New Testament, driven by medieval piety rather than apostolic teaching.Conclusion
The Catholic source builds its Marian doctrines on typological leaps (e.g., New Eve), linguistic stretches (e.g., kecharitōmenē), and Church authority, not explicit Scripture. Protestantism, rooted in ESV clarity and modern exegesis, counters:✅ Mary was a faithful servant, not sinless (Romans 3:23).
✅ Her Assumption lacks evidence (Hebrews 9:27).
✅ Christ alone intercedes and mediates (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 7:25).
✅ Prayer and guidance come through Jesus, not Mary (John 14:6).
✅ Modern Protestant thought, from Wright to Grudem, reaffirms sola scriptura, honoring Mary as blessed (Luke 1:48) but rejecting her as a supernatural intermediary. These Catholic claims, while devotionally rich, falter under biblical scrutiny, prioritizing tradition over the text’s plain meaning.