Introduction

The questioning of origin, conceptualization and relationship with the existence of God as well as the meaning of human life from misfortune and injustice admits many philosophical and theological answers, writes Juan Antonio Estrada.¹ These reflections that permeate theology, philosophy and religious traditions have, over time, admitted discourses that in their historical incursion came to influence human thought and religiosity with its implications. These implications are usually characterized by presenting the Judeo-Christian God with certain limitations, as presented by Luiz Sayão: "Denial of God's goodness, denial of the power of God's intervention, denial of God's original power, denial of divine omniscience, denial of divine immanence".²

Firstly, an overview of the Theodicy theme will be presented with emphasis on two perspectives: The Theological Perspective and the Philosophical Perspective. These will be approached as conjectures that have influenced and suggested the thoughts of society about theodicy.³

A Biblical approach to the subject is also exhibit in an attempt to extract conceptualization and systematization of the subject in a Christian Judean view. After verifying the theological, philosophical and biblical positions of the object of research, the subject will be presented under the eschatological aegis with specificity in the book of apocalypse. This book presents a literary structure that establishes an eschatological panorama denying lines of thoughts on theodicy formulated and developed through the influence of areas of the knowledge of human culture.

Theodicy – Overview

As a reality in human life, evil must be considered in several features. Its universality fosters the construction of concepts of theodicy in various perspectives of human knowledge. Thus, one can verify the subject on various bias, not restricting to a specific area. Luiz Sayão stated that "the problem of evil makes essential and important incursions in other departments that contribute decisively to the attempt of a response, reflected in a deep and comprehensive way, for this relevant issue".⁴ For Sayão⁵ several types of theodicy were elaborated, note the principal ones he listed:

Theodicy of Free Will - God has a use for evil, since He uses it for good finalities. "He allows evil to produce a greater good."⁶ This argument runs through a retributive reasoning:

The classical theist argument states that evil can begin in the good, though this is incidental and never essential. There is no essential derivation from good to evil. This is understandable, for according to classical theism evil does not exist as substance, as Augustine's classic argument shows. Evil does not have full essence. The fundamental idea of this type of theodicy is that evil originates from the wrong use of the will of God's creatures. Some of these creatures opted for moral evil. This exercise of freedom resulted directly or indirectly in all the evils and sufferings that afflict the world of God.⁷

Pedagogical Theodicy - Sayan states that "in this theodicy the focus is displaced from the origin of evil, and it is placed primarily on the possible good results of the experience of suffering. The idea is that the experience of suffering (evil) would be an indispensable benefit to the better development of human capacities ... This position emphasizes the reality that we live in a world regulated by natural laws and that much of the evil in the world happens of these laws"⁸

Eschatological Theodicy - based on the conviction that life transcends death and that justice and injustice will receive their due reward. The future has the answer and the solution of what happens in the present. Jurgen Moltman infers that eschatology must be at the heart of theology so that impasses as found in theodicy and that revolve around classical theism and atheism are properly understood. On this subject Moltmann states: "From beginning to end, and not only in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, it is hope, it is facing the future and it moves in its direction and therefore revolutionizes and transforms the present."⁹

The Delayed Theodicy – in this it is argued that human limitations and the tremendous distance separating God from man do not allow us to know the reasons for the permission of evil now. It should also be pointed out that such a position is also different from the idea that it is impossible to evaluate God's behavior;

Theodicy of Communion - This position emphasizes that God is primarily perceived and known in suffering. This theodicy does not explain why there is undeserved suffering. However, it transforms the view of suffering, for to suffer for a just purpose is to do God's will and make Him known. Suffering is the great opportunity for God and man to enter into communion and collaboration. Suffering is transcended, and what seems to be worse is seen as the occasion of the most intense religious experience.

Theological Perspective

Observations on theodicy (even though this term did not exist) were considered by important scholars of Christianity in the patristic period.¹⁰ The example of this is Augustine's account:¹¹

God ... did not create the evils, if the person understands this world in a more strict sense. But the evils, which are few in comparison with the orderly organization of the universe, are consequences of the works carried out in their first intention.¹²

He still reaffirm:

So evil, whose source I have been seeking, is not a substance at all - for if it were so, it would be good Then I realized, and it became very clear to me, that [God] did all the good things and there is no substance which [God] hath not created, and because all things [God] have created are not equal, therefore all things are; because individually, they are good, and when gathered together, they are very good, for God has done all things very good.¹³

Another patristic writer who made observations was Lactantius. He recorded the argument of Epicurus in his book On The Anger of God, quoted by Jonathan Hill.¹⁴ Gregory of Nyssa,¹⁵ the theologian who influenced Augustine, and Irenaeus of Lyons,¹⁶ are also among the great theologians who offered answers and arguments for the perception of that time about theodicy.

Further theological conceptions would receive direct influence from the patristic theologians as well as from the theologians of Scholasticism.¹⁷ The latest having as main representatives Anselm of Canterbury¹⁸ and Thomas Aquinas.¹⁹ Both the Patristics led by Augustine and Scholasticism by Thomas Aquinas had its theological rhetoric influenced and grounded in philosophical inquiry. Therefore, it would be natural that the theodicean discourse even being theological, did not indicate roots in the biblical interpretation. Just observe Roger E. Olson comment on the main theological conceptions about God and evil:²⁰

1. The Traditional Vision that goes back to the church of Augustine, God is the reality that determines everything and nothing happens outside of his plan and control. From this point of view, God certainly plans and makes each event happen, without exception. It does not say that God directly causes evil but plans evil and causes it to happen by withdrawing its protective power which keeps evil away;

2. A second conception, sustained by many Christians throughout the centuries, is that God limits his control to allow human free will. A second conception, sustained by many Christians throughout the centuries, is that God limits his control to allow human free will. Evil happens because of human action and not divine action. God is reluctant to interfere, for if he interfered he would be curtailing the freedom of the individual;

3. The third is the Theology of Process,²¹ which affirms and proposes the inability of God to interfere in the events of human life.

Two other theological lines that in its scope notify God's inability to solve the problem of evil are the following: Deism.²² Theological current that projects God as indifferent to human problems, a form of denial of Divine Onibenevolence. The second is open theism.²³ Unlike deism, open theism denies Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence and presupposes the assertion that God Himself is open to new experiences, including the experience of learning about the progressive events of world history as they manifest. John Pipper made the following comment in refuting the teachings of this theological current:

The Bible teaches that God prepared salvation from the effects of the Fall before the foundation of the world. Thus he foresaw that there would be a Fall and that there would be effects of it that would lack a plan of redemption. In 2 Timothy 1: 9, for example, Paul says that from all eternity God had planned to grant us grace in Christ Jesus as our Savior. [...] God not only envisioned in eternity the sinful choice that Adam (and Lucifer before him) would make, but also planned to bestow grace in Jesus Christ in response to misery. Therefore, to say that "God can not foresee the good or bad decisions of the people he creates until he creates these people and they, in turn, make their decisions, is to suppose that God could not infallibly see the Fall approaching and so doing plans for it as Paul asserted he did. In this way, our confidence in the attainment of redemption would be weakened because our perspective of God would nullify the eternal plan of redemption described in the Scriptures.²⁴

In theological terms, Divine Omnipotence and Oneness are intrinsically related to their immanence²⁵ and transcendence.²⁶ For philosophy this would be the greatest challenge of Christian metaphysics. If the creationist perspective, which unites these two intrinsic characteristics to God, is the starting point for theists, tragedy and human suffering are the scars of humanistic philosophical atheism regarding a God who is cruel, and at best, indifferent to the desires of men. What is perceived is that theological currents before the polemics of theodicy, are based on Neo-Platonist philosophy of Patristic and the Aristotelian philosophy of Scholasticism. Thus creating a theodicean discourse practically without Bible and influencing the society with its theo-philosophical concepts something that could be denominated Reductionist Theism.

Philosophical Perspective

A common element among philosophers, especially those of an atheistic orientation, when dealing with the existence of God is precisely the theme of theodicy. It is observable that the atheistic philosophical Theodicy discourse is recurrent among its participants. Hill partly corroborates this assertion when he states:

In the twentieth century, many philosophers have carefully reformulated this argument. The idea is that the existence of suffering is, in fact, incompatible with the nature of God, as described by Christians. If there were an all-powerful and morally perfect being, he would not allow the suffering we witness. But suffering; so being all-powerful and morally perfect does not exist. In other words, the argument was presented as a deductive proof contrary to the existence of God.²⁷

Theological philosophers also transited in this subject as Justo González notes:

The problem of evil, which is the main concern of theodicy, has long troubled philosophers and theologians of theistic alluring. It is clear that if there is no God, it is not necessary to explain evil; if there are several gods or several eternal principles, evil can be explained because of this conflict between them. However, theism has to face the question: if God is good and omnipotent, how does evil exist? Ultimately, the various solutions proposed tend to deny at least one of three points that seem fundamental: first, divine goodness; second, divine omnipotence; third, the reality of evil. Since Christians never deny the existence of God, most Christian theologians and philosophers have sought answers by redefining evil, or divine omnipotence.²⁸

Although González makes statements where the answers to theodicy have been sought by Christian theologians and philosophers, thinkers of great relevance in the formation of the society’s thoughts, formulated their opinions on this subject, using philosophical logic, rationalism and social empiricism.

The first systematized philosophical article on theodicy was written by Leibniz,²⁹ although philosophical speculations had already been raised by important philosophical names. For example, Epicurus of Samos.³⁰ This was the first to formulate the question that relates divine omnipotence and benevolence to the existence of evil has establishing what the philosophers call the paradox of Epicurus. Quoted by David Hume, showing that the problem of theodicy had been presented some 2,500 years earlier.

The old questions of Epicurus remain unanswered. The Divinity wants to avoid evil, but cannot do it? So He is powerless. Is he able, but does not want to avoid it? So He is malevolent. Is he able to avoid it and want to avoid it? Where then does evil come from?³¹

The logic of the paradox proposed by Epicurus takes three characteristics of the Jewish god, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence as a true case to the peers, excluding a third. That is, if two of them are true, they automatically exclude the other. It is, therefore, a trireme. This is relevant, because if it is illogical that one of these characteristics is true, then it cannot be the case that a god with all three exists.³²

For Jefferson Alves de Aquino

The question becomes more complex when it is added elements from a moral or religious understanding of the order of the world. In identifying the first cause of everything to God, and this to a principle of goodness and omnipotent, we add to the opposition freedom-ofnecessity the crucial addition of morality, namely how evil can come from a first cause free from all denial, pure positivity? The Gordian knot of Christian metaphysics, the problem of the explanation of evil in the world, the measure that comes from identifying the first cause as absolute perfection and, consequently moral perfection, rests upon human freedom to offer a response to that question. Indeed, the concept of free will appears in this context not only as a solution to the inquiry about human freedom, but as a pressing exemption from God in the face of the existence of evil.³³

In short, the trilemma also called the Epicurus paradox would be like this:

• While omniscient and omnipotent, he is aware of all evil and power to end it. But it does not. So it is not omnibenevolent;

• While omnipotent and omnipresent, then it has power to extinguish evil and wants to do so, for it is good. But it does not, for it does not know how badly it exists and where evil is. Then he is not omniscient;

• As omniscient and omnipresent, knows of all the evil that exists and want to change it. But it does not, because it is not capable. So he is not omnipotent.

The paradox of Epicurus was the starting point for the formulation of a discourse, even if not purposeful in its collective convergence. Notice that David Hume makes a quotation just as Epicurus had formulated. Albert Camus,³⁴ French philosopher stated that "If our world were a creation of the gods, there would not be so many absurd things".³⁵ His assertion is that if there is pain in the world then there is no God.

Perhaps no one has more powerfully asserted the objection that moral human attitudes make to the existence of God than the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. In his book The Brothers Karamazov infers that the presence of evil in the world makes it impossible to believe in God.³⁶ Kant launches his guidance on this subject by shifting the focus of rationalization in an attempt to get answers to the concerns of his time. Its starting point is man, not God. For him the only real value of God was in the sphere of morality.³⁷

In the formation of Theodicy discourse under the philosophical perspective, it is essential to remember the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. His line of thought was defined as "existentialist and humanist."³⁸ In his book The Devil and the Good God, the idea defended is that for the living man it is necessary that God disappear. It also reflects the aspect of existentialist morality, which suppresses pre-established values in an intelligible heaven and places good and evil as relative. In short, Sartre makes the existence of God an impossible necessity of human life. Unlike Nietzsche called a philosopher of incredulity or unbelief, Sartre does not want to kill God, for death, in extent, leaves remnants of the presence of those who died in the consciousness of the people.³⁹

Currently the greatest diffuser of Theodicy discourse with philosophical atheistic orientation is Richard Dawkings. In his book God a Delirium quoted by Stephen Unwin, a physicist and author best known for his book, The Odds of God: "Unwin thinks that the existence of evil, especially natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, weighs heavily against the likelihood that God exists".⁴⁰

A great proof that the theodicyan philosophical atheist discourse operates can be seen from the account of Jonathan Hill:

A rare recent example of one who has converted to theism on account of such arguments was the philosopher Anthony Flew, who spent many years defending atheism in force. In 2004, however, Flew commented that the analysis of the cosmological argument convinced him that perhaps there was even a divine creator of the universe, although he remained equally convinced that the existence of suffering proves that such a creator could not be perfectly good.⁴¹

The formation of concepts through this thought, and the diffusion of the philosophical theodicean discourse tends to permanently alienate the individual from God, for in his orientation, God is an impossible reality, in front of the existence of suffering and evil.

Notwithstanding the book of Revelation shows a Theodicy discourse that emphasizes the character of God distinguishing it from the philosophical and theological conceptions presented above.

Biblical Perspective

In the Holy Scriptures, we have ambiguous perspectives on theodicy. The evidence we have relates much more to an existential practical orientation than to a speculative concern. This question pervades the Holy Scriptures,⁴² not in the same spectrum of humanity, but in the existential dimension of evil. Evil seems to be a constitutive element of the problem of God since it extends its shadows on the deity itself and raises questions concerning a good, evil or impotent God.

Dr. Juan Antonio Estrada makes the following observation:

"The problem of evil is so important in biblical traditions that it permeates the image of divinity and the conception of the cosmos and of man. In fact, it can be said that the entire Judeo-Christian tradition is determined by the problem of evil, and that theological concepts such as creation, redemption, Kingdom of God or eschatology are developed as attempts to respond to the problem. It is the boundary experiences, birth and death, that establish the global pretension of meaning of life."⁴³

The Hebrew writer Luiz Sayão describes some words that the Hebrew Bible uses to refer to the linguistic nuances of evil. There is a generic term for evil that is ָרָעה (verb translated as being evil or being bad) or ַרע (evil, affliction, bad, bad).⁴⁴ Verify Deuteronomy 30.15.

The above-mentioned author classifies evil in the Hebrew Bible literature into three types and presents specific Hebrew terms for each type of evil:

Evil as Sin and Impurities - There are Hebrew words that translate evil in a religious sense permeated by an ethical and ceremonial bias. ָחָטא (hata), ָּפַשׂע (pasa) and ָעוָה (`avah) are terms that have basic meanings of sin, and can be translated as sin, rebellion, and iniquity;⁴⁵

Evil as Suffering - In biblical Hebrew there are at least two words that evidence evil as suffering:

ָאוֶ ('aven) which, although sometimes used in the ethical sense, has a degree of suffering in various aspects. Below these nuances are listed according to expert Luiz Sayão: Physical suffering, various aspects. Below these nuances are listed according to expert Luiz Sayão: Physical suffering, meaning evidenced in the death of Raquel (Genesis 35.18) and in texts such as Job 5.6 and Habakkuk 1.3; Physical Fragility. The idea of boredom, weariness (Psalm 90:10); Deep sadness. In cases of mourning connected with death (Deuteronomy 26: 4 and Hosea 9: 4); Result of Sin, in the sense of suffering arising from the practice of sin (Isaiah 10.1; Psalm 7.14); Mistake. In some of Job's texts, the term refers to a deceptive discourse that leads to suffering (Job 34.36, 36.21).

לַמָע (`amal) - This term can be conceptualized as stammering, having as one of the main semantic meanings the oppression and the tiring work, according to Sayan:לַמָע (`amal) - This term can be conceptualized as stammering, having as one of the main semantic meanings the oppression and the tiring work according to Sayan: Heavy work, fatigue. It is the meaning in many texts (Job 5.7 and 7.3); Frustrating work. It is the specific use of the term in the book of Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 1:3; 2:10) Suffering, affliction. It appears in several passages (Genesis 41.51, Deuteronomy 26.7 and Judges 10.16); Problem caused to others. Use present in some poetic passages (Psalm 94:20 and Proverbs 24: 2).

Evil as spiritual evil - About this Luiz Sayão says:

The religion of Israel, monotheism and ethics by essence, confronted it’s first conflict with idolatrous and polytheistic paganism . Although he shares certain cultural elements with the peoples around him, Israel manifests a religion that largely demystifies and ridicules paganism and idolatry.⁴⁶

It is found that despite the existence of the figure of Satan, who in the Old Testament has four references as a supernatural being (Zechariah 3.11, 1 Chronicles 21.1, Psalm 109: 6 and Job 1.8: 2.1), the Hebrews attributed responsibility for evil to God himself . Notice the statement of John A. Sanford:

There are many examples in the Old Testament showing that the ancient Hebrews saw Yahweh as the source of good as well as evil. For example, consider Amos 3.6: "If there were any wickedness in the city, was it not Yahweh who acted?" or Isaiah 45.5-7: "I am Yahweh and there is no other [...]. I form the light and create the darkness, I assure the well-being and I create the misfortune, yes, I, Yahweh, do all this ". Or Isaiah 54:16: "Know that it was I who created the smith who blows the coals in the fire and draws out the instrument for their use; I was also the one who created the exterminator, with its function of creating ruins ".⁴⁷

The author further asserts that:

Since Yahweh is a totality of opposites, everything comes from him, including good and evil. As for this, to the ancient hebrews evil wasn’t a problem. They believed in one only God and, and if there was good and evil in the world, if man-kind suffered a tragedy or was amassed of blessings, if it succumbed to destructive humors and evil passions, all this had its origin in Yahweh. This was until the Hebrew moral consciousness developed and they felt a certain nuisance in the idea of a God who apparently sent both good and evil on the human species.⁴⁸

Note that throughout the Holy Scriptures various ideas about the origin of evil and suffering in the world are synthesized on several faces. Biblical authors have different ideas:

1. some (like the prophets) believed that suffering came from God as a punishment for sin;

2. a second group believed that suffering came from God's cosmic enemies, who inflicted suffering on people precisely because they tried to do what was right in the eyes of God; a third group thought that suffering was a test to see if people would remain faithful despite suffering.⁴⁹

Old Testament

In the book of Genesis is presented the account of the origin of evil in the terrestrial dimension (Genesis 3). It is precisely in this pericope of the book of Genesis that it explains why the world has so many problems. From this point the spiral in the direction of moral degradation, suffering and evil begin to outline its contours. An understanding of non-Genesis evil involves a hamartiological view, where sin enters in a "space" that has been defined by God as good (nature) and very good (human being). Before the fall of man evil was a possibility, but after human overthrow, evil and suffering had become a reality. The terrible burden would be perceived in time and space. Instantly nuances of evil and suffering involved the human race. 1- Moral hue (Genesis 3:10 and 21/19: 1-5; 19: 30-38 / 38: 13-19); 2- Spiritual hue (Genesis 3:10 and 15/31: 30-35); 3- Physical-Biological hue (Genesis 3:16 -19; 4: 8): 4- Social hue (Genesis 4: 9-10 / 34: 25-29). Note that this evil presented in the genesis of human history was only the outbreak of an already existing evil before the creation. In the light of Ezekiel 28:15 is identified the being that gives rise to evil, but how sin developed or took care of him there is no biblical explanation. Ellen G. White herself confirms:

It is impossible to explain the origin of sin in a way to give a reason of your existence. However, enough can be understood about the origin, as well as the final disposition of sin, so that the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with evil.⁵⁰

Throughout the Pentateuch and the historical books are presented how this evil bequeathed roots of chaos in the social condition of the Hebrew people (Deuteronomy 28: 1-28 / Joshua 1: 5-8; 2: 11-15 / 1 Kings 9: 4-7). The prophets then notify the people of Israel that the suffering of their nation was produced by disobedience. Thus, in a generic way, suffering was the implication or the unfolding of punishment.

The prevailing position in the conception of the prophets is a synthesis of the meaning given to human suffering among the Hebrews, especially the post-exilic period. The basilar account of the theodicy of the prophets leads to a conclusion with the sinister aura of the incomprehensible. Note that two of the larger prophets, Isaiah (see Isaiah 1: 21-25, 3: 24-26) and Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 5: 15-17; 19: 8-9) and two minor prophets, Amos 3-6) and Hosea (see Hosea 2: 2-4), advocate that suffering has the ultimate goal of encouraging repentance by bringing the people into a context of obedience Isaiah clearly states that it is God who creates evil (see Isaiah 45: 7; 41:23), position advocated by Jeremiah (see Lamentations of Jeremiah 3:38). Summarizing, the logic of this hope is clear. Suffering comes from God. If his people simply return to Him, suffering will come to an end. This is the classic view of the prophets, a vision that differs from that presented in the first three chapters of Job, and that of Daniel.

In Job the variants of the conception of the consequences of evil diverge from each other. In the first part of the book, a prose narrative, suffering is a test of faith; in the second part of the book, poetry narrative, suffering remains a mystery that cannot be understood or explained, states Ehrman.⁵¹ However, there is an understanding in this writing that presents different nuances on the subject:

1. God punishes the wicked (Job 15:20);

2. God assures the prosperity of the righteous (Job 8:20 / 22:21);

These two first arguments are the faces of the theory of retribution: God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. To job:

1. No one is righteous before God (Job 15:14);

2. Suffering is pedagogical.

The book of Daniel is analogous to the first part of Job's book on the basic issues of suffering. When compared to the classical prophets there are divergences of vision. For Daniel, suffering falls upon the people of God because of the evil forces in the world. In the classic view of the prophets, God gives suffering. In Daniel, it is the forces that oppose Him. For the classical prophets the people are responsible for their own suffering. For Daniel, it is the regimented forces at war with God that are to blame: they are in direct persecution of those who do God's will.

What causes suffering? In the classical view, the sinful activity of the people of God. In Daniel, the righteous, upright, conciliatory behavior of the servants of God. This position resembles Job's.

How will suffering be extinguished? For the classical prophets when the servants of God repent and return to the ways of the Lord. For the prophet Daniel this will happen when God Himself destroys the forces of evil that are opposed to Him in the world and establishes the good kingdom for His servants.

New Testament

In the New Testament the ambiguities do not cease. In the Gospels we have evidenced the reality of evil. Christ himself affirms this when he says: "In the world ye shall have afflictions, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world "(John 16:33). Jesus recognizes the real nature of suffering and evil. He had an orthodox view of evil, a real view of suffering, while his disciples possessed a orthopraxical view, since their perspective of suffering and evil was based on the Hebrew tradition: “His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9:2). Marcelo da Silva Carneiro in his article Evil in the Bible: The Impersonation of Evil in the Writings of the Hellenic Period to the Writings of Primitive Christianity states that:

In the New Testament, the Gospels are the ones who most deal with the subject, placing the ministry of Jesus as a clash with satanic forces, both in the accounts of the healing and deliverance of the oppressed, and in attempts to impede their advance toward Jerusalem. Among them, Mark is the one who has more records of this conflict, probably influenced by the events of the Jewish War (66-70 AD). Demonic action is shown through the law (Mark 1: 21-28), of the Roman legions in Palestine (5: 1-20, where the devil speaks his name in Latin), of prejudice and social exclusion (7.24-30), of the disease (9: 14-29), showing that the coming of God's reign is imminent. It is the first of the signs quoted at the end of Mark's gospel.⁵²

For him evil in the New Testament is personified, appearing in the following forms:

daimón: appears 77 times. Its root is uncertain and can come from "da" (shoot, distribute, spread knowledge). In this case he approaches a minor Persian divinity, with a divine character. It can also be from the Hebrew shed, verbal root shud = to do violence, dominate, possess. In classical Greek they were spirits of the dead, "which could be placated or controlled by magic, spells and incantations.”⁵³ In the NT the term is used by Matthew, and in greater number, in the diminutive form daimonion, as well as "demonic" participle, "to define the influence or control exercised upon a person by a demon present in him/her”;⁵⁴

Diabo: The Greek term diaballo means "to play in the middle," "to cross the path," or to "separate," "divide," "cause to stumble and fall”. The LXX translates the Hebrew term satan as the adversary. Thus it is presented in the NT as one who wants to divide and destroy; appears 35 times throughout the New Testament;

Beelzebu: is one of the few proper names of evil entity that appears. The use of the name of this entity is part of a popular mentality of that age with respect to the demons. Originally Baal [lord] zebub [of dung or flies], he was a Philistine deity. It is quoted in 2Rs 1.2, as deity of EkromAt the time of Jesus was considered the prince of demons. Everything indicates that the deity was attached to considered unclean sacrifices (manure), and for that reason became the "major of the demons”;

Espírito imundo (pneuma akatarton): a term that appears only in the synoptics, which speaks of a spiritual influence contrary to God. It comes from the junction of pneuma (wind, spirit) and akatarton (unclean), whose root is the verb kathairó (purify). The term arthos, indicates the pure bread of wheat, that with the privative particle "a" in front of it indicates the opposite. Its impurity is related to the domination it exercises over human beings, which become animalistic.

Thus, in the New Testament, Evil as an action of evil spirit beings was part of the imagery of Christians of the neo-testamentary period. Luiz Sayão in presenting the singularities of the concept of the problem of the evil of Judaism with Christianity considers that: “O Novo Testamento sugere uma intensa atividade de Satanás e dos demônios, apresentando-os como fonte de sofrimento, de doença e de pecado (veja Marcos 5.1-13; Mateus 9.32-34)”.⁵⁵

John A. Sanford in his writing on the subject argues that it is probable that the thinking of Jewish theologians was influenced by the dualistic view of good and evil. He says that “no tempo de Jesus os fariseus e o povo comum daquele tempo estavam firmemente convencidos de que havia toda uma hierarquia de espíritos bons e maus, e que Satã presidia os últimos”.⁵⁶ Sanford's position on the personification of evil is similar to that of Marcelo Silva quoted above. Note:

Considering the role of Satan in the NT, we note that it has several names.Thirty-Five times he is called satan in the gospels; Thirty-seven times he is the 'diabolos' orthe devil; in many times he is the ‘enemy’ and Seventy times he is refered as Belzebu, which means 'lord of the flies', and refers, as we have already seen to the Persian divinity, Ahriman. In the fourth gospel we also find frequent references to the devil often quoted as' prince of this world. In view of these appellative names 'Satan' and 'diabolos' (devil) are much more numerous. Satan is a term of Hebrew origin that means, as we have seen, a being that obstructs a free movement, of advancement, thus becoming an adversary or accuser. 'Diabolos' is a Greek word used as an equivalent of Satan. It’s literal meaning in verbal form means 'to play across’, as if the 'diabolos' throws something crossed our path to interfere with our progress. In its substantive form, 'diabolos' is also translated by accuser or adversary, which corresponds closely to the meaning of the word Satan.

For the Apostle Paul, evil presents itself in a threefold way. By nature evil is aggressive and invasive, shows everywhere its ravages. Its manifestation occurs in three different aspects, says Alfred F. Vaucher: "In outer nature - the cosmic evil, in our body - physical evil, in our soul - moral evil, sin”.⁵⁷

In the NT the theodicy is not theorized. The apostle Paul was the one who wrote more about it. However, his foray into theodicy escapes from the metaphysical abstractism of the subject, perhaps because the reading he had was developed in his Christian practice. In his book Porque Sofrer? O Sofrimento na Perspectiva Bíblica, Erhard S. Gerstenberger and Wolfgang Schrage list the New Testament interpretations.⁵⁸ Note below:

Communion with Christ – “Suffering is a sign of belonging to Christ [...]communion with Christ not only makes Christians capable of suffering but still confers on their willingness to suffer their true meaning [...]Sufferings can be understood correctly only from the cross and resurrection of Jesus, which God kills to revive [...]Suffering becomes unavoidable and comprehensible not by the existence of an eternal historical plan or even of an apocalyptic calendar, but by communion with Christ”;⁵⁹

Vis Aliena (Foreign Force) – “The simultaneity of suffering and comfort in communion with Christ means that the Christian is on constant dependence of God and must always to divert attention from himself. Therefore, Paul can define the meaning of sufferings and tribulations as follows: 'That we may not trust in ourselves, but in God who raised the dead' (II Corinthians 1.9). Something similar is found in II Corinthians 12: 7, where Paul reveals that a thorn was cast in the flesh that he should not be arrogant, and in II Corinthians 4: 7 that the treasure is found in earthen vessels, that the excellence of power may be of God and do not proceed from ourselves [...].According to Paul, sufferings aim at a goal similar to that of the message of justification and the word of the cross, that is, to dismantle all the bonds of self-assertion and self-confidence, even though the justification that is imputed to us by God has in view of the justice of others, while in the case of suffering, it has in mind the power of others. In both cases, however, it is not a question of things of their own, but of something alien, coming from outside, given by God, of an extra reality”;⁶⁰

Disillusion and Eschatological Reserve – “The disillusioning function of suffering is found in another sense. Sufferings not only want the sufferer's attention to be turned to God, but also to the future, thus teaching him the 'not yet' of the fulfillment of salvation. Sufferings, therefore, have an anti-enthusiastic function and aim at preserving the Christian in hope, despite all the contrary signs. " Erhard S. Gerstenberger and Wolfgang Schrage sets forth Paul's understanding in the following terms:

Especially for the apostle Paul suffering does not only indicate Christ's membership, but are also signs of the present time (Romans 8:18). This also frustrates any attempt to bagatelize or glorify suffering. The most ancient catalogs of suffering of Paul was intended to inculcate with clarity the 'eschatological reserve' as opposed to the 'nowadays' of Corinthian enthusiasts. Before the religious enthusiasm of the Corinthians to believe all the promises fulfilled, to be filled already or to be already rich (I Corinthians 4: 8), Paul emphasizes that God put the apostles as condemned to death and concretizes such an affirmation in v. 11-12 on a list of sufferings. 'Up to this hour' (v. 11) about hunger, thirst, nakedness, slaps, etc. Therefore, there is still pressure, tribulation, persecution, and suffering (cf. also v. 13 and Romans 8:22) ... for Paul, suffering is not only the paradoxical place and mode of new life and power of Christ, but they are also characteristic of the old éon. Suffering is not only suffering with Christ, but also suffering with the unredeemed world and with the 'redemption of the body' (Romans 8:23) still pending and even 'moaning and being depressed' in the earthly tabernacles (II Corinthians 5: 4) . Just as the "mortal body" (Romans 8:11) and the "mortal flesh" in which, according to II Corinthians 4:11, we carry the "death of Christ" still belong to this body, so sufferings not only denounce belonging to the crucified Christ, but also to 'now' and 'imperfection' as opposed to 'then' and 'perfection' I Corinthians 13: 10-12.⁶¹

The aforementioned author expands the meaning of the suffering or scourge in the following terms:

It is true that neither things of the present nor the future, nor heights nor depths can separate from the love of God, but it is evident that they try. In any case, suffering is not only a sign of the love of God and of the theology of the cross, but also a sign of what opposes this love, which challenges it and is therefore also an expression of viatorum theology. In this sense, the sufferings are ambivalent. For this reason, it is possible to understand the sufferings as coming from the Devil. This contradiction will disappear only in the coming consummation. Only in the 'new Jerusalem' will God wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there will be no more death, no suffering, no weeping, no pain. "(Revelation 21: 4) For this reason, suffering-free actuality is illusory while death, the 'last enemy' (1 Corinthians 15:26), is still not definitively defeated in its power and yet 'slaps' (II Corinthians 12: 7) and infringes upon suffering (Revelation 2:19; others). There is no doubt that for Jesus the healings of the sick and the exorcisms signal the eschatological outburst of the Kingdom of God in this world of suffering and death (Luke 11.20 and verse 5).⁶²

Evidence:

According to the New Testament concept, the sufferings are not intended solely to disillusion the individual, to show him the provisional value and the inconsistency of all the bases and essentials of this world, and thus to lead him to the only solace in life and death. Sufferings also aim to prove and exercise their faith, to mobilize its strength of endurance and constancy. The insistent emphasis on patient persistence, as is especially the case in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John (cf. Hebrews 10: 32-36, Revelation 2: 2, 19, 14, 12), but also in other authors (Mark 13.13, Romans 12.12, James 5:11, 2 Timothy 2: 12) shows that in suffering the Christian is at stake, being placed in a still unfinished process whose meaning and end remain unknown for the duration of the present time.⁶³

Note that it suggests that in NT sufferings may be advocating and genuineness of faith as affirmed below:

According to the other passages of the New Testament, the sufferings and temptations are aimed at proving the authenticity of his faith, incomparably more precious than the passing gold, as evidenced by fire. "(I Peter 1:17). Therefore, faith proves its authenticity in suffering, like gold in fire. To suffer is to exercise oneself in the faith, concrete proof and decisive means of verification (cf. James 1.3, 12).⁶⁴

Hope – For Erhard S. Gerstenberger and Wolfgang Schrage:

[...] os sofrimentos não apenas suscitam esperança, devendo nesse sentido, ser considerados positivos, mas também fazem com que se espere pelo término dos sofrimentos, sendo assim relativizados pela esperança do que há de vir. Essa esperança se fundamenta tanto na história de Cristo quanto na participação do ‘sofrimento de Cristo’, e é por ela garantida (cf. II Coríntios 4.14; 13.4; Filipenses 3.10; I Pedro 1.21; 5.1 e outras). Quem ‘sofre com ele’ também ‘será glorificado com ele’ (Romanos 8.17). Quem tem parte nos sofrimentos de Cristo também pode exultar-se no dia da revelação de sua glória (I Pedro 4.13).⁶⁵

They still add on the Pauline perspective on suffering:

Similarly, Paul says, in Romans 8:18, 'that the sufferings of the present time mean nothing when compared to the glory that shall be revealed unto us.' This does not mean that the sufferings have become insignificant, indifferent, trifles. By no means does Paul slaughter the sufferings - they continue to be oppressive and costly (II Corinthians 1: 8, 4, 7, 5), - the sub species of what is to come, however, gain another aspect and value. Nothing is worth and signifies compared to the glory that is to come. In the face of future doxa, everything receives its true perspective and dimension, including suffering.⁶⁶

The biblical text of II Corinthians 4.17 endorses this statement: “Porque a nossa leve e momentânea tribulação produz para nós eterno peso de glória, acima de toda comparação”.

Testimony – “As much as suffering refers the Christian to faith and hope, respectively, to Christ, it is also characteristic of him the element of witness to others, including non-Christians”.⁶⁷

The idea advocated by the authors is that suffering enhances the preaching of the gospel through witness (martyría).⁶⁸ Note:

It is true that the later ecclesiastical use according to which martyrdom is a witness (martyrdom) is not yet known. Luke, however, makes it clear in the Book of Acts that suffering and persecution do not hinder the propagation of the Gospel, but they do it (cf. the missionary movement that arises from the martyrdom of Stephen, 7:44, and persecution in And in other places, 11.19 It is not unintentionally referred to in 16:25 that the rest of the prisoners heard when Paul and Silas prayed in the prison and sang at midnight. it is by chance that the testimony of the Gentile centurion under the cross (Mark 5.39) occurs precisely in view of the crucified and dead Jesus. This does not in any way mean that Jesus' heroic behavior had been so impressive that his martyrdom moved the commander to The meaning of this is: what is dying there manifests in its death its divine filiation, and it may be recognized that the death of Jesus, as opposed to all appearances, the should be seen as a failure, but as evidence and testimony of his divine filiation.⁶⁹

Biblical accounts of the existence of suffering and evil are never explanatory and conclusive. The variation of the theodicetic senses in the Bible stimulated scholars to self-reflective consciousness, where a deep rationalization replaced biblical exegesis, thus raising theological and philosophical perspectives that would construct a theodicean discourse that would influence mankind.

Eschatological Theodicy Response in the Apocalypse

William G. Johnsson states that the eschatological scenario of the Apocalypse includes cosmic disturbances and major disorders.⁷⁰ Ehrman says that “Nenhum livro da Bíblia se concentra mais no sofrimento que o livro do Apocalipse”.⁷¹ Gluder Quispe presents a comparative literary structure⁷² which shows in the center of the book a great conflict where evil powers are opposed to God and His people. In this comparison, he exposes the exegetical view of two theologians. Note below:

It is verifiable that the literary structures that are analogous above, notify that the evil or evil powers and their activities in humankind are at the center of the discussion of the book of apocalypse. This is a strong evidence that this literature has as one of the central objectives to address this theme, recognizing its implications in human society as well as its final banishment. Ranko Stefanovic also highlights this central apocalyptic emphasis of a great conflict between good and evil in the chiasmus below:

• A. Prologue (1:1-8);

• B. Promises to the winner (1:9 – 3:22);

• C. The work of God for the salvation of humanity (4 - 8:1);

• D. The wrath and mercy of God working together (8:2 – 9:21);

• E. Commissioned by John to prophesy (10 – 11:18);

• F. The Great Conflict (11:19 – 13:18);

• E’. The church proclaims the gospel of the last day’s (14:1-20);

• D’. The final wrath of God deprived by mercy (15 – 18:24);

• C’. The work of God to the complete salvation of humanity (19 – 21:4);

• B’. The fulfillment of the promises to the winner (21:5 – 22:5);

• A’. Epilogue (22:3-21).

John Paulien also proposed a quiasm⁷³ where the center of the Revelation converges to the same idea of the author mentioned above. Watch:

• 1:1-8 Prologue

• 1:9-3:22 The seven churches

• 4:1-8:1 The seven seals

• 8:2-11:18 The seven trumpets

• 11:19-15:4 The final crises

• 15:5-18:24 The seven cups

• 19:1-20:15 The millennium

• 21:1-22:5 The New Jerusalem

• 22:6-21 Epilogue

In addition to the aforementioned, the language of destruction, wars, persecution, demonstrates that in terms, the Revelation is a literature dealing with theodicy. It can be an answer to the questions that have arisen through the ages about God's role in the face of suffering and evil in the midst of humanity. According to William G. Johnsson the Revelation of John “reveals God's long-term plans for history."⁷⁴ Maxwell shares this same idea: “This book provides glimpses of what Jesus has done behind the scenes, of what he is doing today, and of what he will do in the future in favor of human beings”.⁷⁵ In fact, the very term Revelation can mean 'manifestation, discovery, exposition or revelation. To Anderson besides revealing future events, in another sense is the revelation about Jesus Christ.⁷⁶ He still affirms that the “Son of God is mentioned by name, or by pronouns which indicate His person, more than a hundred and forty times in the first three chapters. This emphasizes the fact that the central Person of the book is Jesus.

"It is interesting to note another element that composes the apocalyptic eschatological discourse that clearly opposes the current theodicy contemporaneously. The hymns of Revelation. n his master's dissertation, Edcarlos Vera Menezes cites the hymns present in the Apocalypse of John establishing the following chiastic structure:

• A. Redemption initiated (4-5)

• B. The righteousness of God is questioned (6:9-10)

• C. Redeemers singing standing before the throne (7:9-12)

• D. The kingdom of God and Christ is established (11:15-18)

• D’. The kingdom of God and Christ is rescued (12:10-12)

• C’. Redeemers singing standing before the throne (15:2-4)

• B’. The righteousness of God admitted (16:5-7)

• A’. Redemption complete (19:1-8)

Note that themes like righteousness is evidenced in the hymn scenes of the book, and at the center of chiasmus, we have the kingdom of God established. That is, the eschatological answer that challenges the theodicy discourse of the current society. Menezes still attests:

The hymns of Revelation describes at least 5 aspects of the character of God, the knowledge, holiness, omnipotence, eternity, justice and truth. The hymns also describe the mighty works of creation, salvation, judgment, and reign, as God's actions in universal history, expressed as manifestations of His power and righteousness.⁷⁷

In relation to the events the Apocalypse besides being a book of predictions, is also of descriptions when it refers to its central personage. When one approaches from a perspective of verbal, thematic, and structural parallels one notices that there are links between the Apocalypse and the Old Testament books. These links constitute the basis for the construction of the theodicean eschatological Revelation. The characteristics that are there contrasted with the theodicean discourses that put into disrepute the omnipotence and the divine omnibenevolence.

An example of this is the structural parallelism between the book of Job and Revelation.⁷⁸ Both have similar emphases. The suffering of the human being, the struggle between the forces of good and evil, the fidelity of the faithful is put to the test, God, despite appearing omission, is aware of the emanation of evil, He is closely following the unfolding, and He returns everything that was lost or destroyed to his servants, once again the divine goodness is notified. There is also thematic parallelism. The themes envolved in the Revelation and in the book of Job, the elements that lead many to suffering are worship, obedience, and disobedience. It seems contradictory, but there are biblical questions that run away from human plausibility.

The last parallelism that structures a construction of a eschatological speech and that antagonizes with the society speech, is the verbal one. The books where most occurs the term Almighty is Job (31 times) and Revelation (9 times). This is a perfect parallelism that, together with the aforementioned, confronts some theological and philosophical discourses proposed to theodicy. Boskamp conflates the relationship between Job and Revelation in the following terms:

The book of Revelation clearly presents these contrasting elementsThe people of God / people of the adversary; seal / Seal of God / mark of the beast; New Jerusalem / Great Babylon; woman in white / woman dressed in purple; Three Angels / three unclean spirits; etc. In Job's book, the protagonist is in a fight of arguments with his friends. There is a debate about justice and ungodliness, about innocence and guilt, about wisdom and madness, about prosperity and calamity. However, it is the cosmic dimension that reveals a broader antagonism. Both books reveal especially a struggle between the forces of good and evil on a universal level. These do not represent abstract forces, but are identified with specific people. This struggle is called "cosmic conflict." It is this conflict that generates the contrasting elements. In Job's case, celestial beings are mentioned in 1.6 and 2.1 in the council meeting under the name of "sons of God" (~ yhla and nb).
The word "angel" or "messenger" ($ alm;) to refer to celestial beings occurs in 4.18 and 33, 23. The reference is part of a message received by Eliphaz, the message is repeated in 15.15 and 25.5. In these passages he referred to "ministers and angels", "saints and heaven" and "moon and stars" binomial respectively. 38.8 appear in parallel expressions "star of the dawn (rqb ybkwk) and" all the sons of God "(~ yhla ynb-lk) In Revelation there are extensive descriptions of the celestial assembly.He highlights chapters 4 and 5. There is reference to" The "four living creatures" (te, ssara zw / | a le gonta), and the "four living creatures" of a peculiar aspect, "a mighty angel" (a; ggelon ivscuro.n; 5.2), and a series of angels (5.11). They are also mentioned in 7.11 and individually in many other parts of the book. These celestial beings are active in the history and events described in the Revelation. The adversary: the question of conflict can be clearly seen in the preface to Job's book. There are the "sons of God" mentioned appearing in the assembly. But also among them is a being called "Satan" or "the adversary" (! JXh). This name presupposes a prior conflict that is now called adversary. The book of Job does not show the process by which a being can become regarded as an adversary, simply part of the basis of considering adversary. Like Jacob, the use of the preposition "in his midst," he says, "among them" (~ kwtb). In Job 1.6 it indicates a similarity and kinship (cf. 1Sm 23.10 and 10.10) Satan acts here as a member of this council. But it is also true that the word "also" (~ g) suggests that he was not a regular member within this group. Although, as a being essentially similar to other "sons of God," his conduct shows in him a different nature. In this context, the figure of Satan is that of a questioner, promoter of the case of Job, his integrity, but not the nature of the motives for which he serves God (1: 8; In this way, says Job fully known, an attribute that belongs only to God is attributed. But the commentary of Satan is much more complex still, it calls into question the act of God for his servant Job. Job's life is nothing more than an opportunity for him to demonstrate the injustice of God if he can deny the patriarch of God, who "curse his face" (2.5). In Revelation Satan is mentioned by name on more than eight occasions. But in12.9 and 20.2 os identified as the great “Dragon” (o` dra,kwn), “a Serpente antiga” (o` o;fij o` avrcai/oj), e “Diabo” (dia,boloj). De todas estas, a mais empregada é a de “Dragão” with a clear connotation of a power opposing God and his people. Also the references to the "star that fell on earth" (9: 1) and "the angel of the abyss" (9:11) may be allusions to his person.⁷⁹

When the Revelation communicates under the eschatological bias a term, "Almighty".⁸⁰ which best defines divine omnipotence the author is establishing na obstacle in theo-philosophical discourse which reason is not able to transpose. Norman Gunlley noted that:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, said the Lord, what is, what was and what is to come, the Almighty. This Christ who brought the world into existence, the conqueror of Calvary, the mighty intercessor, the coming king; You are all powerful! This is the final word on cosmic terrorism.⁸¹

To Doukhan The Almighty or The Shadday is one of the most oldest name of God in the Hebrew tradition. Israel would come to remind you, to the God of the patriarchs, as the God of promises and blessings (Genesis 28: 3; 35:11).⁸² It appears in Revelation 9 times, it only occurs in the New Testament out of Revelation one only time (II Corinthians 6:18, the context of suffering as well), and Job that occurs in this term (31 times). It is a term that is essentially linked to a context of suffering. Both the are the ones who most witness to the presence of evil with the presence of God. It is worth noting that the Almighty (παντοκρατωρ) sustains in the apocalyptic discourse the explicit omnipotence of God, before the tentacles of evil in the structure of the book as well as in the discourse that the existence of suffering and evil excludes the possibility of the existence of God.

The omnipotence is one of the incommunicable atribuites of God. Strong defines as "the power of God to do all things that are the object of his power with or without the means."⁸³ He still states that “ its impossible to conceive of any limit to His power except that left by His own will”.⁸⁴ To Strong there are at least three ponderations that needs to be observed regarding this omnipotence:

Omnipotence does not imply power to do what is not the object of power; for example, that which is self-contradictory or contradicts the nature of God ... Things contrary to God's nature: lying, sinning, dying. Doing such things would not imply power, but impotence. God has all power consistent with infinite perfection - all power to do what is worthy of Himself ... Even God can not do wrong to be right, nor hate to be blessed ... Omnipotence does not imply the exercise of all power from God.⁸⁵

Chafer exposes the omnipotence in the following term “The infinite power of God, which is called omnipotence, is employed in the fulfillment of all that God wants.”⁸⁶

The omnipotence presented the Revelation of John could be catagorized in two ways, Explicit Omnipotence and Implicit Omnipotence:

Explicit Omnipotence – are the occurrences that directly identify God as the Almighty:

1. Revelation 1:8 – I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, who was and who is to come, the Almighty. cf. Job 24:1;

2. Revelation 4:8 – And the four living creatures, each having six wings respectively, are full of eyes, all around and within; they have no rest, neither day nor night, proclaiming: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was, who is, and who is to come;

3. Revelation 11:17 – Thank you, Lord God Almighty, who you are and what you were, because you took your great power and came to reign;

4. Revelation 15:3 – and they sang the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;

5. Revelation 16:7 – I heard from the altar that it was said, Surely, O Lord God, Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. cf. Job 5:17; 8:3; 34:12;

6. Revelation 16:14 – for they are the spirits of devils, the signal-operators, and they address the kings of the whole world to gather them to the battle of the great day of the Almighty God. cf. Isaiah 13: 6; Joel 1:15;

7. Revelation 19:6 – And I heard one as the voice of a great multitude, as of many waters, and as of loud thunders, saying, Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns;

8. Revelation 19:15 – A sharp sword comes out of his mouth to strike the nations with it; and he himself shall rule them with an iron scepter, and personally tread the winepress of the wrath of the wrath of Almighty God;

9. Revelation 21:22 – In it I have not seen a sanctuary, for his sanctuary is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb. cf. Ezekiel 10: 5.

Note that the expression “Almighty” in this literature. And as has been stated above, after Job, this is the book where the more that term is used.

Implicit Omnipotence – n the biblical literature there are also texts that indicate the use or recognition of the power present in God. It is identified as: Creator– Revelation 4:11; 10:6; 14:7

• Ruler – (sit on the throne) 3:21; 5:10; 6:16; 7:10 e 15; 12:5; 22:13

• Worthy of being worshiped – 5:13 e 14; 11:2; 14:7; 19:10; 22:9

• Has absolute power – 6:17; 11:6 (over nature); 7:12; 19:1; 16:9 (control over the plagues, it is God who imposes limits).

• Eternal Reign - Revelation 11:15

• Overcome the Dragon – 12:7 to 10; 20:9 a 10

• Judges – 14:7; 16:5; 18:8; 20:12

• Recognition -Revelation 15:4

• King of kings and Lord of lords – 17:14; 19:16

• Donor of life – Revelation 20:5 e 6

• Recreator – 21:1 a 4

The divine omnipotence permeates all the biblical literature of the Revelation. Before the folk preached and spread by liberal theologies and atheistic philosophies, the eschatological theodicytic discourse converges its reader into the consciousness of a provident, provident, possible and absolute Being.

Another characteristic of God that belongs to that eschateological theodicean discourse is His omnipresence. Omnibevolence or goodness is part of one of God's attributes. Although different from the previously analyzed attribute, it is communicable. Opposing what some philosophers assert that it is impossible to exist a kind God and suffering at the same time. For Jesus Christ, only God deserved the title of good (see Mark 10:18). His kindness intrinsic and inherent. He doesn’t depend on anyone to have kindness. His Omnibevolence it is neither derived nor circumstantial. It can be seen in many ways, such as love, mercy, grace, and patience. Omnibevolence is objectified in creatures in general (see Psalm 36: 6), as among humans (see Psalm 36: 7, 8).

To Pannenberg kindness describes the efectiveness love of God, de-characterizing His love as something abstract. On this subject he made the following comment:

In the message of Jesus, the God whom he proclaimed as Father is especially characterized by his goodness, being above all other beings (Mark 10.18 par.). With this, Jesus took up again the idea which, in Jewish piety, underlies the call to praise God and the gratitude of those who pray (Ps 106.1, 107.1, 118.1 et passim). The goodness of God is revealed in the fact that He does not give good things only to His creatures when they ask for them (Matt. 7:11), but the grace without regard to its merit (Mt 20:15). His perfection (Matt. 5:48) consists in the fact that the heavenly Father shines his sun on the good and the bad (Mt 5:45). His care is worth all his creatures (Mt 6:30). In Jesus' pronouncements on God's paternal goodness lies the creative and preserving action of the Father.⁸⁷

As Pannenberg, Chafer relates goodness or omnipresence to divine love, but broadens homogenizing with divine holiness. He states that:

This atribuite, if contemplated as that which is within God, is connected with his holiness; if contemplated as that which proceeds from God, is connected with love. God's infinite goodness is a perfection of his being that characterizes his nature and is in itself the source of everything in the Universe, which is good. The specific terms used to demonstrate the goodness of God are a) benevolence, which is goodness in its generic sense, and encompasses all its creatures and assures them of their well-being; b) complacency, which is that in God who approves all his own perfections, as well as all that conforms to himself; c) mercy, which is the goodness of God exercised in behalf of the need of his creatures; d) grace, which is the free action of God on behalf of those who are without merit, freedom that has been secured by the death of Christ.⁸⁸

Strong considers that:

Goodness is the eternal principle of the nature of God that leads Him to communicate His own life and blessing to those who are similar to Him in moral character. Goodness, therefore, is almost identical to the love of complacency; mercy to the love of grace. ⁸⁹

In Revelation the divine omnibevolence extends practically throughout the book. Look at the examples:

1. God keeps and protects – Revelation 3:10; 12:6

2. God demonstrates complicity, approximation – Revelation 3:20; 19:9

3. He rewards – Revelation 11:18; 14:13; 21:7

4. God consoles – Revelation 7:17; 21:4

5. Judges the cause of his children – Revelation 18:20

6. Judges and fights with righteousness (justice being shown to the ungodly) Revelation 19:11

7. Will exterminate all evilness – Revelation 22:3
   He foretold, warned before - Revelation 22: 6 (cf. John 13:19)

Implicit and explicit in the Revelation, divine goodness or omnibevelonce is: predictable, preventable, provident and provident. When in harmony with omnipotence, it conceptualizes and represents God in the face of a society that is influenced by previously evidenced thoughts that postulate atheism or a reductionist theism that can also be called Christian atheism. It shelters society from a philosophical theodicytic discourse, which ends up excluding God, and from a theology that humanizes Him to the detriment of His Divinity.

Conclusion

Taking into consideration the Theodicy speeches presented by some of the great thinkers of man-kind , according to which the parallelism between omnipresence and omnipotence would be exclusive, God would be a philosophical and theological impossibility. The problem of evil is central to judaism and christianity,both in theory and in practice. One can even affirm that both religions organize themselves as systematic and global answers to the question of evil, developing from their conception on the essence of God and of the human being and on the way in which both act.

The general objective of this article is to extract knowledge and conceptuations of knowledge through textual bases that proposedly difines tha theodicy. These bases are configured on biblical texts, namely, Old Testament and New Testament, as excipient literature in the biblical conceptualization of the researched subject. In this sense, it has been observed that there are several biblical Hebrews to define what is evil itself, which shows a more pragmatic view of theodicy, since in the Hebrew mentality evil is more related to human activity than a divine action. In the New Testament, the dimension of evil remains real and in an attempt to explain its existence the apostle Paul, the greatest of the New Testament writers, concludes the personification.

The philosophy and theology also served as textual bases in the problematization of the proposition and inquiry carried out. Before theology the complexity of the theme does not cease, this is verified due to the several conceptions presented by this area of knowledge. Five are the main ones, two classics that are based on Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, namely, patristics and scholasticism, and the other three are contemporary theological orientations, such as deism, open theism and the theology of the process.

In philosophy there are assertions dating back to the 4th century BC with the paradox of Epicurus, and from the 17th century this theme gains a more systematized outline with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in a literary production that deals with the freedom of man and the origin of the evil that is a treatise on Theodicy.

Thinkers as in David Hume, Sartre, Dostoievski, Albert Camus, and the most recent Dawkings, and others also contributed in the attempt to explain this that for them constituted an aporia. Nevertheless, in these terms, philosophy places the existence of a God in the mold of Christianity, not as improbable, but as impossible.

Here we are before the theological chains mentioned, a theodicean speech that makes the society doubt of a loving God with eternal power. A Sovereign controller, cosmic moralist, impassive and sanctioner of the status quo. And before ideas of some philosophers, it is fulfilled what Sthendal affirmed in a letter "the only excuse is that God does not exist"⁹⁰ The very term Revelation already presupposes a contrast between the discourse of contemporary theologies and philosophies regarding theodicy, since God allows to penetrate the unheard of the human being, the future.

This book presents God as a righteous being. Osborne states:

It is not only the righteousness of God that is at issue, it is also his "righteousness." The fact that God "judges righteously" is a truth often emphasized in Psalms (7:11, 9: 38, 50, 67, 72,means that God administers justice based on his own righteous standards, he always does what is right. As stated in Revelation 16: 7 and 19: 2, "His judgments are true and righteous (di, kaiai)" (cf. 15: 3). The image of God as judge is frequent in the book of Revelation (6.10, 11.18, 14.7, 16.5.7, 18.8, 20.20, 19.2, 20.12, 13) and she informs us that her judgment is always just and true.

The question of whether suffering prevents belief in the existence of God gained strength in the modern age,an intersection of iluminism. And these postulations continue to be dissipated in today's society. The Theodicyan Eschatological Discourse or Eschatological Response) arises to notify to the present society that for God the happiness of man is rule and suffering an exception.

Ehrman writes the following comment:

God is sovereign, evil is not the end of history. Pain, unhappiness and death are not the last words. God has the last word [...]. Those who now suffer will be rewarded, in the good kingdom that God is about to give [...]. This is a message designed to give hope to those who suffer, to prevent them from despairing amid the agony and unhappiness that belong to a world that seems controlled by forces of evil that are opposed to God and his people.⁹¹

For a better understanding of theodicy from a Christian perspective it is necessary to analyze this subject on an eschatological bias. “The future is not something totally intrinsic to the present. On the contrary, instead of being determined by the process, the future determines the present The role of Christian theology consists in making such reminders of the future (promises) have something to say to the hopes and anguish of the present ".⁹² Sanford's understanding converges to this eschatological understanding when he states that "only in the end will evil be separated from good and destroyed”.147

REFERENCES

AGOSTINHO, Santo. Confissões. São Paulo: Folha de São Paulo, 2010.

ALVES, Manoel Izidro. O sentido do sofrimento na Sagrada Escritura. Communio 42 (11/12), 1988.

ANDERSON, Roy Allan. Revelações do Apocalipse. Santo André: Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 1977.

AQUINO Jefferson Alves de. Leibniz e a Teodicéia: o problema do mal e da liberdade humana www.centrodefilosofia.com/uploads//pdfs/philosophical/28/5.pdf

BARCLAY, William, Apocalipsis El Nuevo Testamento Comentado. Buenos Aires: Asociación Editorial La Aurora, 1959.

BETTONI, Rogério A. O problema de Deus em Jean-Paul Sartre. 2007. Disponível em: >. Acesso em 20 ago. 2015.

BLOESCH, Donald G.: God, the Almighty : Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2006.

BRECK, John. The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994.

CAMPOS, Heber Carlos de. O Teísmo Aberto: um ensaio introdutório. Fides Formata IX, 2004.

CARNEIRO, Marcelo da Silva. O mal na Bíblia: a personificação do mal nos escritos do período Helênico aos escritos do Cristianismo Primitivo. Revista Ancora, v. VIII, ano 7, 2012.

CHAFER, Lewis Sperry. Teologia Sistemática. v. 1 e 2, São Paulo: Hagnos, 2003.

CHAMPLIN Norman Russell. Enciclopédia de Bíblia, Religião e Filosofia. v. 5, São Paulo: Hagnos, 2006.

CHAMPLIN, Russel N. Comentário bíblico interpretado: versículo por versículo. v. 6, São Paulo: Candeia, S/D, 1995.

COLEÇÃO Patrística. Gregório de Nissa, v. 29, São Paulo: Paulus, 2011.

_____. Irineu de Lyon, v. 4, São Paulo: Paulus, 1997.

_____. Orígenes contra Celso. v. 6, São Paulo: Paulus, 2004.

COENEN, L.; BEYREUTHER, E. & BIETHENHARD, H. Diccionario Teológico del Nuevo Testamento, IV. 3. ed. Salamanca: Sígueme, 2009.

COMFORT, Philip Wesley (Ed.). A origem da Bíblia. Rio de Janeiro: CPAD, 1998.

CRAIG, William Lane. Apologética para questões difíceis da vida. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 2010.

CUNHA, Eliel Silveira; CARDOSO Fernanda. Os Pensadores – Santo Agostinho, São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 2004.

CUNHA, Eliel Silveira; CARDOSO, Fernanda. Os Pensadores – Leibniz. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 2004.

_____. Os Pensadores – Santo Anselmo, São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 2005.

_____. Os Pensadores – Tomaz de Aquino, São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 2004.

DAWKINS, Richard. Deus um Delírio. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2006.

DOUKAN, Jacques B. Secretos del Apocalipsis. Buenos Aires: Asociación Casa Editora Sudamericana, 2007.

EHRMAN, Barth D. O Problema com Deus, respostas que a Bíblia não dá ao sofrimento. Rio de Janeiro: Agir, 2008.

ESTRADA, Juan Antônio. A impossível teodicéia: a crise da fé em Deus e o problema do mal. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2004.

FERREIRA, Franklin e MYATT, Allan. Teologia Sistemática uma análise histórica, bíblica e apologética para os dias atuais. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 2007.

FRIBERG, Timothy; Friberg, Barbara; Miller, Neva F.: Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000 (Baker's Greek New Testament Library 4). FREEDMAN, David Noel: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1996.

GERSTENBERGER, Erhard S.; SCHRAGE, Wolfgang, Por que Sofrer? O Sofrimento na Perspectiva Bíblica, São Leopoldo: Editora Sinodal, 2007.

GEISLER, Norman. Enciclopédia Apologética. São Paulo: Editora Vida, 2002.

GONZÁLEZ, Justo, Breve Dicionário de Teologia, São Paulo: Hagnos, 2009.

GUNLLEY, Norman, El Caballo de Troya de Satanas La Victoria Final de Dios. Buenos Aires: Asociación Casa Editora Sudamericana, 2006.

HILL, Jonathan. As grandes questões sobre a Fé. Rio de Janeiro: Thomas Nelson Brasil, 2008.

HUME, David. Diálogos sobre a Religião Natural. São Paulo: Martins Fontes Editora, 1992.

JOHNSSON, William G. Tratado de Teologia Adventista do Sétimo Dia. Tatuí: Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 2011.

JOSEFO, Flávio. História dos Hebreus. Rio de Janeiro: CPAD, 2009.

KISTEMAKER, Simon. Apocalipse. São Paulo: Cultura Cristã, 2004.

KRUSE, Colin, II Coríntios Introdução e Comentário. São Paulo: Sociedade Religiosa Edições Vida Nova, 1987.

KUSHNER, Harold S. Quando coisas ruins acontecem às pessoas boas. São Paulo (SP): Nobel, 1988.

LARONDELLE, Hans K. As Profecias do Tempo do Fim. Flórida: First Impressions 1997.

MACARTHUR, John; MAYHUE, Richard. Pense Biblicamente recuperando a visão cristã de mundo. São Paulo: Hagnos, 2003.

MAXUELL, C. Mervyn. Uma Nova Era segundo as Profecias do Apocalipse. Tatuí: Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 2002.

MAXWELL, C. Mervyn, Apocalipsis: Sus Revelaciones. Buenos Aires: Asociación Casa Editora Sudamericana, 1991.

MELO, Fábio de. Quando o Sofrimentp Bater à sua Porta. São Paulo: Editora Canção Nova 2013. MENEZES, Edcarlos Vera. Deus nos hinos do Apocalipse: seu caráter e obras / Edcarlos Vera de Menezes -- Cachoeira, 2014

MILLER, Ed. L.; GRENZ, Stanley J. Teologias Contemporâneas. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 2011.

NEWTON, Isaac, As Profecias do Apocalipse e o Livro de Daniel. São Paulo: Pensamento, 2008.

NICHOL, Francis D. Comentário Sobre Apocalipse. São Paulo: SALT – IAE, 1984.

_____. Comentário Bíblico Adventista do Sétimo Dia. Tatuí, SP: Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 2012.

OLSON, Roger E. Deus e a Cabana. Rio de Janeiro: Thomas Nelson Brasil, 2009.

OMANSON, Roger L. Variantes Textuais do Novo Testamento. Barueri: SBB, 2010.

OSBORNE, Grant R. Apocalipse Comentário Exegético. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 2014.

PANNENBERG. Teologia Sistemática. v. 1, Santo André: Academia Cristã; Paulus, 2009.

PAULIEN, John Karl. Seven Keys: unlocking the secrets of Revelation. Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2009.

PAULIEN, John, Revista Teológica, Cachoeira: SALT-IAENE, 1999.

PENZO, Giorgio; GIBELLINI, Rosino. Deus na Filosofia do Século XX. São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 2002.

PIPER, John. Motivos de Desânimo: o Erro e a Injúria do Teísmo Aberto. Editado em Teísmo Aberto: Uma Teologia Além dos Limites Bíblicos. São Paulo: Editora Vida, 2006.

QUISPE, Gluder. The Apocalypse in Seventh Day Adventist Interpretation. Lima: Ediciones Universidad Peruana Unión, 2013.

REVISTA Teológica. Cachoeira: SALT-IAENE, 1999.

REZENDE, Antônio Martinez de; BIANCHET, Sandra Braga. Dicionário do Latim Essencial. Belo Horizonte: Crisálida, 2004.

SANFORD, John A. Mal: o lado sombrio da realidade. São Paulo: Paulus, 1988.

SARTRE, Jean Paul. O Existencialismo é um Humanismo. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1987.

SAYÃO, Luiz, O Problema do Mal no Antigo Testamento. São Paulo: Hagnos, 2012.

SCHIAVO, Luigi. O mal e suas representações simbólicas. O universo mítico e social das figuras de Satanás na Bíblia. In: Apocalíptica e as Origens Cristãs. Estudos da Religião n. 19, ano XIV. São Bernardo do Campo: Editora Metodista, 2000.

SCHREINER, Thomas R. Teologia de Paulo O Apóstolo da Glória de Deus em Cristo. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 2015.

STEFANOVIC, Ranko, Revelation of Jesus, Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009.

STRONG, Augustus Hopkins. Teologia Sistemática. v. 1, São Paulo: Hagnos, 2007.

TENNEY, Merrill C. Enciclopédia da Bíblia. Cultura Cristã, v. 5, Cambuci: Cultura Cristã, 2008.

THOMPSON, Alden, A Bíblia Amplificada – Samuel. Buenos Aires: Asociación Casa Editora Sudamericana, 2002.

TUCKER, Ruth, Fé e Descrença, O drama da dúvida na vida de quem crê. São Paulo: Mundo Cristão, 2008.

ULLOA, Karl Günther Boskamp. DavarLogos, XII, 1-2 (2013).

VAUCHER, Alfred F. La Historia de la Salvacion. Madrid: Editora Safeliz, 1988.

MENEZES, Edcarlos Vera. Deus nos hinos do Apocalipse: seu caráter e obras / Edcarlos Vera de Menezes -- Cachoeira, 2014.

VINE, W. E., UNGER, Merril F., JR, William White. Dicionário Vine – O significado exegético e expositivo das palavras do Antigo e Novo Testamento. Rio de Janeiro: CPAD, 2006.

WHITE, Ellen Gould. O Grande Conflito. Tatuí: Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 2008.