Philosophy Kierkegaard!

A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS OF SØREN KIERKEGAARD’S LATER THEODICY

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN UNCHANGEABLE AND SILENT GOD

By

Kathy L. McFarland

8 May 2013

http://biblestudydata.com/moodle/mod/page/view.php?id=274 Page 2 of 17

Becker Bible Teacher Resources © 2014 Kathy L. McFarland. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

Danish lay theologian and father of existentialism Søren Kierkegaard was a

“suffering servant”1 for the Lord as a young student that sought to resolve how God

worked His will through his twisted and fearful life. His persistence in totally immersing

himself in Scripture led him to form a theodicy to “reconcile the existence of an

omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect God”2 with the existence of Christian

suffering towards the end of his life that assured his faith with God’s consistency.3 This

paper will examine and scripturally evaluate Søren Kierkegaard’s later theodicy

conclusions of an unchangeable and silent God in response to suffering.

BRIEF HISTORY OF KIERKEGAARD’S SORROWFUL YOUNG LIFE

Kierkegaard buried his mother and sister in 1834 and his father in 1838 after their

tragic deaths left him vulnerable and shaken by the time he came to the University of

Copenhagen.4 The close relationship with his father prior to his passing was shattered

when his father’s sure faith in God seemingly unraveled in his sorrow at losing his wife.5

And then, in the midst of turmoil, his fiancé, Regine Olsen, ended their thirteen month

engagement.6 His first journal books, Repetition and Fear and Trembling, captured his

1 Janet Forsythe Fishburn, "Soeren Kierkegaard, Exegete," Interpretation 39, no. 3 (1985): 236.

2 Kenneth Surin, "Theodicy," Harvard Theological Review 76, no. 2 (1983): 225.

3 Fishburn: 236.

4 ibid., 229.

5 ibid., 230.

6 ibid.



angst that contributed to his dark personality shaded by his tremendous suffering of so

much loss at such a young age. Kierkegaard thought he would die young, as did five of his

seven siblings, as God brought judgment upon the second generation of his “cursed”

father whose sin against the Holy Spirit was claimed as punishment through the hands of

a vengeful God.7 Author Fishburn attributed his search of scripture and philosophy to the

despair of so much tragedy in his life that caused Kierkegaard to distinguish his father’s

“melancholy Jewish‐type legalism of orthodox theology” from the peace and joy promised

believers in the Lord.8 Thus, the journey began with his immersion into Scripture and

philosophy to possibly achieve self‐understanding that would one day lead to the

development of the philosophy of existentialism.9 Kierkegaard’s belief expressed in

Christian existentialism examined personal encounters with God through the act of faith

to be the determinant for the meaning and choices in life made in a meaningless world;10

this seems foundational to his later theodicy conclusions of an unchanging and silent

God.

PRESENTATION OF KIERKEGAARD’S THEODICY

“The Changelessness of God”11

7 Søren Kierkegaard, The Journals of Kierkegaard (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1958), 14.

8 Fishburn: 233. 9 ibid., 229.

10 Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 234‐235.



Kierkegaard’s idea of a changeless God that will not move to a different path than

his original will or change direction of his willed activity through human activities was

central to his later belief. Kierkegaard delivered a sermon entitled “The Changelessness of

God” to the Citadel Church on May 18, 1851.12 Authors Martens and Millay classified this

short sermon as part of Kierkegaard’s “final attack on Christendom” who offers “a defense

of the God who sits silently by and watched true Christianity disappear from Denmark”13

as believers embraced legalized faith that looked like paganism to Kierkegaard.14

James 1:17‐21 was the Scripture support for his sermon and his theodicy (“a defense

of God in the face of evil”)15 delivered just two months before his death:16

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. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we

should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Wherefore, my beloved

brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For

the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Wherefore lay

apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with

meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

11 Søren Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ "the Changelessness of God" (Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 1998), 263‐281.

12 ibid., Preface, 267. 13 Paul Martens and Tom Millay, "'The Changelessness of God' as Kierkegaard's Final Theodicy: God

and the Gift of Suffering," International Journal of Systematic Theology 13, no. 2 (2011): 170.

14 Ibid., 177. 15 ibid., 171. 16 Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ "the Changelessness of God", 268.



The ideas of the “Father of lights” having “no variableness” and “neither shadow of

turning” are the key points that Kierkegaard founded his belief (James 1:17).17 The

omnipotent LORD God, present everywhere in all times, making changes to His Creation

according to His will, without ever changing Himself as human activity unfolds is the

image of the eternal, changelessness God defended by Kierkegaard. That defense, with

James 1:17‐21 referenced, pointed believers to be at peace with God18 and His unchanged

truth by being “swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath” if they are to walk in His

righteous path and do His will; anything less produces wrath against the holiness of God

19 (James 1:19).

The Scripture support found in James 1:17‐21 seems clearly representative of

Kierkegaard’s defense of God’s changelessness. But as his theodicy developed, according

to Martens and Millay, he ultimately produced a problematic justification for suffering

given as a “good and perfect gift from God.”20 Accordingly, Kierkegaard did not focus

upon the normal Christian defense of God’s love in spite of suffering, but rather points to

“peace, prosperity, and piety” as signs that God is not present in those works.21

17 Martens and Millay: 269.

18 Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ "the Changelessness of God", 271.

19 ibid., 273. 20 Martens and Millay: 170.

21 ibid., 175.



It is through the “gift from God” that Kierkegaard was able to distinguish between

the temporal and eternal realms ruled by God, as the Holy Spirit penetrates this world

and does the will of the Father. Thus, Kierkegaard rejected any notion that the temporal

world had control of God activity, thus rejecting the idea that mankind’s activities can

change God. Rather, he insisted that the temporal world had absolutely no meaning, and

that it was the eternal world, with Holy Spirit presence contacting mankind in

“eschatological penetration” of this world that all matters of God’s movement should be

evaluated upon.22

It is important to note that Kierkegaard acknowledged God’s presence and his

theodicy should not be confused for the “absent or deist” God.23 The God defended by

Kierkegaard created both the eternal and visible world and He holds “all actuality as

possibility in his omnipotent hand, at every moment has everything in readiness, changes

everything in an instant, the opinions of people, judgments, human loftiness and

lowliness; he changes everything – himself unchanged.”24 This distinction between God

changing situations while remaining changeless himself is critical to Kierkegaard’s

theodicy; without it, a personal relationship between God and believers would be made

difficult and prayer from them to Him ineffective.

22 ibid., 178.

23 ibid., 179. 24 Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ "the Changelessness of God", 271.



It might be problematic for some suffering Christians to think that God sees and

plans everything based upon the eternal rather than temporal realm and moves

accordingly upon this earth with His unchanging purposes. Kierkegaard spoke of

“dialectical inversion of values” that chose the eternal realm and changelessness of God as

being the only criteria Christians should use to evaluate suffering that is in reality a gift

and blessing by God.25 Suffering is made a purposeful action given by God to believers;

according to Kierkegaard, it is an important requirement for Christianity and without it,

there is not true faith.26

Suffering Authentic Truth‐Witnesses

Kierkegaard believed that to be an authentic Christian requires suffering for

Christ, and if suffering does not take place, then there is no evidence of Christianity.27 He

spoke of the supreme authentic truth‐witnesses that suffer for Christ as the legitimate

marker of true faith, one that was lacking in Bishop Mynster who displayed pretend

Christian faith:28

A truth‐witness is a person who in poverty witnesses for the truth, in

poverty, in lowliness and abasement, is so unappreciated, hated, detested,

so mocked, insulted, laughed to scorn‐so poor that he perhaps has not

always had daily bread but he perceived the daily bread of persecution in

abundance every day.…A truth‐witness, one of the authentic truth‐

25 Martens and Millay: 170. 26 Ibid. 27 ibid., 173.

28 Søren Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ the Moment No. 1 ‐ "Was Bishop Mynster a

'Truth Witness'?" (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 7.



witnesses, is a person who is flogged, mistreated, dragged from one prison

to another, then finally – the last advancement by which he is admitted

to the first class in the Christian order of precedence among the authentic

truth‐witnesses.… 29

Kierkegaard’s truth‐witness definition described the highest degree of

suffering by a Christian that ends in being “crucified or beheaded or burned or

broiled on a grill, his lifeless body thrown away by the assistant executioner into a

remote place, unburied.”30 Accordingly, the highest level of truth‐witness is placed

at the top of Christian order after death because of his suffering for the truth of

God.

The opposite of truth‐witness is also described by Kierkegaard:

Truly, there is something that is more against Christianity and the

essence of Christianity than any heresy, any schism, more against it than

all heresies and schisms together, and it is this: to play at Christianity.

But (entirely, entirely in the same sense as the child plays at being a

soldier) it is playing at Christianity: to remove all the dangers

(Christianly, witness and danger are equivalent), to replace them with

power (to be a danger to others), goods, advantages, abundant enjoyment

of even the most select refinements.…31

Authentic witnesses of God’s Truth suffer tremendously, according to Kierkegaard,

and God does not intervene.32 All persecuted Christians that suffer well and endure to

29 ibid., 5.

30 ibid., 6. 31 ibid.

32 Søren Kierkegaard, Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, trans., Howard V. Hong and Edna Hong

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 37.



the end are truth‐witnesses; but, all truth‐witnesses are not martyrs according to

Kierkegaard’s holy chain summation.33 And, Kierkegaard vehemently declares that all

pastors are incapable of truth‐witness status since they benefit greatly from their ministry

work through worldly acclaim, payment, and gifts.34 Kierkegaard believed that the good

and perfect gift of suffering should be embraced by true followers of Christ without

imploring God to “change one’s temporal situation.”35 It is the value in eternity that will

be applied later for the believer’s suffering that should be embraced in all situations of

life.36 According to Martins and Millay’s evaluation of Kierkegaard’s belief, “faith consists

in trusting that any situation, regardless of character, comes from above and is a good gift

that is beneficial in eternity.”37 Thus, the silence of God during times of suffering is a gift

bestowed upon believers as they endure to the end when they will receive their eternal

reward from God. But, His silence should not be considered that God cannot help which

then becomes a sin of despair; rather, that He chooses to remain silent.38

33 Søren Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ Newspaper Articles (1854‐1855) "There the Matter Rests" (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 9.

34 Søren Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ the Moment No. 5 ‐ "Beware of Those Who

Like to Go About in Long Robes!" (Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46) (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 197.

35 Kierkegaard, Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, 37.

36 ibid.

37 Martens and Millay: 183‐184. 38 Craig M. Gay, "Plurality, Ambiguity, and Despair in Contemporary Theology," Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 2 (1993): 225.



Kierkegaard warns believers of the ease in which they can fool the LORD God, and

even receive worldly rewards from Him, yet be far removed from Him in a place that

should cause trembling and fear:39

Yes, in his sublimity God himself turns the relation in such a way that it

is as easy as possible for a human being, if he so wishes, to fool God. That

is, he arranges it in such a way that the few he loves and who love him

must suffer dreadfully in this world, so everyone can see that they are

abandoned by God. The deceivers, on the other hand, make a brilliant

career, so everyone can see that God is with them, in which view they

themselves are strengthened more and more. So distinguished is God, so

far removed is he from making it difficult, so infinitely easy is it to deceive

him, that he even himself offers a prize to the one who does it, rewards

him with the things of this earth – O man, tremble!40

The theodicy of Kierkegaard identified God as justified in his silence through the enduring

suffering of His people that brought intimate relationship with Him for eternity. Through

his own suffering, Kierkegaard sought Scriptural reference to support his ideas, especially

James 1:17‐21.41 It should be noted that many Christian leaders fail to use Scripture in their

defense, both philosophers and theologists, to express the problem of God and suffering

with a more intellectual response rather than a focus upon Scripture to resolve this

dilemma.42 Though Kierkegaard’s theodicy seemed harsh, if it erred it erred on the side of

39 Søren Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ the Moment No. 8 ‐ "Tremble ‐ Because in

One Sense It Is So Infinitely Easy to Fool God!" (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 197.

40 ibid. 41 Martens and Millay: 171.

42 Warren McWilliams, "Only the Triune God Can Help: The Relation of the Trinity to Theodicy,"

Perspectives in Religious Studies 33, no. 3 (2006): 348.



humanity and its fallen state that brings suffering in the first place; His defense of God

seemed noble and upheld His omnipotence in His relationship with mankind and his

goodness as expressed in His Word.43

SCRIPTURAL ANALYSIS OF KIERKEGAARD’S THEODICY

The Changelessness of God – The same Scripture used by Kierkegaard to defend

God for His changelessness is confirmation that Kierkegaard’s analysis is probably

correct. It seems pretty certain that God does not change according to James 1:17‐21. But

then, when the first Covenant between God and Noah was established in which God

formed a bow in the cloud to remember to never send a flood to destroy all flesh, it might

be argued that a change in God’s opinion is evident (Genesis 9:8‐17). It also is apparent

that Abraham is able to save Lot from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, though

unable to save the city and its wicked dwellers, by pleading with God to consider the

righteous (Genesis 18:23‐33). Another argument against the changelessness of God is

formed upon the Lord Jesus Christ’s fervent prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane when

Christ pleaded for the cup of his sorrow just prior to his crucifixion to pass away from him

if it was God’s will (Matthew 26:36‐44). Though the LORD God did not change His mind,

and required the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption and salvation of his followers, the

43 Terrence W. Tilley, "The Use and Abuse of Theodicy," Horizons 11, no. 2 (1984): 304.



Lord Jesus Christ knew of the possibility of His Father changing His mind even for

something so critically important to His plans, or he would not have asked.

If Kierkegaard’s declaration of God’s changelessness is to be fully embraced, then it

seems these types of changes in direction or potential considerations must be resolved. It

was Kierkegaard’s assumption that God freely changes mankind’s directions, fortunes,

opinions, judgments, “human loftiness and lowliness” while He remains unchanged.44 It is

that fine line, where the rule and judgment of God can change circumstances of mankind

in all manner of ways to reach His final will to be expressed. But, Kierkegaard’s position

is that God’s will, the end‐goal for the establishment of His Kingdom remains the same,

as does His omnipotent nature that remains sure and unchanging.

Suffering in the Old Testament ‐ There is Scripture support that God allows

suffering to come upon His people purposefully. Job questions “Why is light given to a

man whose way is hid, and whom God hath hedged in?” as he suffers miserably and longs

for death (Job 3:23). Though Job cried for God he is unheard; though he tried to stand up

when seized in the mire with grievous afflictions upon his body, God did not notice (Job

30:20). Job gave support to the concept that suffering is visited upon the righteous and

the workers of iniquity with the difference for His chosen that “Doth not he see my ways

and count my steps…Let me be weighed in even balance, that God may know mine

integrity” (Job 31:4). Interestingly, Kierkegaard paid a great deal of attention to the Book

of Job, to edify readers through the love of God revealed through the sufferings of Job.45

44 Kierkegaard, The Moment and Late Writings ‐ "the Changelessness of God", 271.



But it was not just the love of God revealed; while those of iniquity are punished through

their suffering, Job knew that God brings suffering to fully expose the integrity of His

people.

The Psalmist declares God’s Word has given him life and hope and comforted him

in his affliction, while those against God might suffer; they are without the hope of God as

lawbreakers (Psalm 119:49‐56). But then the Psalmist prays that God “Consider mine

affliction, and deliver me: For I do not forget they law. Plead my cause, and deliver me:

Quicken me according to thy word” (Psalm 119:143‐154) It gives support that God can

change the situation of a suffering believer.

Suffering in the New Testament that qualifies Christian faith – Mark 12:38 confirms

that those who receive the salutations of love in the marketplaces, and walk in long

clothing and garner respect from the commoners, that receive the highest honors and

seats during worship and celebrations do not belong to Christ; rather, it is the poor

widow of lowliness that endures suffering by giving all she can in faith that exemplifies

the faith walk toward Christ. Christ has spoken clear warning of affliction, killing, hatred,

offence, betrayal, false prophet trickery, iniquity, and removal of loved ones in a

Christian’s life, with promises that those that will endure to the end will be saved

(Matthew 24:9‐14). 1 Corinthians 10:13 says that even the temptations brought through

abominable idolaters that bring suffering to Christians will be escapable with the bearing

of burdens made easy. Romans 2:7 promises that those who patiently continue to do well

45 Timothy Polk, "Kierkegaard and the Book of Job: Theodicy or Doxology?," Word & World 31, no. 4

(2011): 413.



in their walk and works with Christ to one day receive glory, honor, immortality and

eternal life. And, Paul reminds believers that though suffering comes to Christians, the

temporary pain is not worthy of comparison to the great glory that will one day be

revealed to them (Romans 8:18). Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit will help suffering

Christians with their infirmities and guide their prayers to God as they seek relief

(Romans 8:26).

CONCLUSION

Kierkegaard’s belief that the good and perfect gift of suffering should be embraced

by true followers of Christ without imploring God to “change one’s temporal situation”

contradicted our Lord Jesus Christ’s response when he faced the greatest of sufferings as

he prepared to be stripped naked, beat, and hung upon a tree in shame and excruciating

death, for the salvation of his followers. He prayed to His Father fervently in the greatest

sorrows to “let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:38). Christians should have Christ’s

example foremost in their lives; if sorrowful prayer seeking relief from suffering is

initiated by Christ, then Christians should follow that example and not fear Kierkegaard’s

analysis that it is somehow against God to ask for a change in your temporal situation.

Kierkegaard correctly analyzed the changelessness of God, and appropriately

differentiated between the possibilities of change for humanity and the unchanging

nature of the LORD God. It seems beneficial to Christians, especially those that are

suffering, to understand that God is the same God that He has been throughout the

creation. The consistency of the LORD God that is unchanged gives hope to Christians



that their endurance of suffering will eventually bring them to an eternal life of no pain in

Christ’s presence forever.

In final analysis, Kierkegaard’s theodicy allowed him to support both the

changelessness of God and His silence during times of suffering, as Christians must

endure and persevere unto the end. That there are great character and soul building

moments in the times of suffering is beneficial to Christians and their relationships with

God. While it seems impossible to declare that all Christians must suffer to show

legitimate faith, there is some grain of truth in this conclusion; for if Christians reject the

world, and look to the coming Kingdom of God, they will usually suffer as a consequence

through the attacks of those that hate God and His People (Matthew 10:22).

But, Kierkegaard crossed the line in his philosophy by declaring an “all or nothing”

approach, when the Gospel of Christ is neither deficient nor excessive in its presentation.

It is the Gospel of moderation that allows Christians to garner strength and surety of faith

through Christ’s teachings, and in most cases suffer moderately only that which they can

endure, or in times of persecution suffer severely that which they are given supernatural

strength to persevere, until their resurrection into life eternal. Either case, the changeless

and sometimes seemingly silent LORD God, is ever present and always ready to provide,

support, uphold, free, and love the followers of Christ as they do His unchanging will that

promises to one day lead to the joyous day when the Kingdom of God is at hand.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fishburn, Janet Forsythe. "Soeren Kierkegaard, Exegete." Interpretation 39, no. 3 (1985):

229‐245.

Gay, Craig M. "Plurality, Ambiguity, and Despair in Contemporary Theology." Journal of

the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 2 (1993).

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics Baker Reference Library.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Kierkegaard, Søren. The Journals of Kierkegaard. New York: Harper Torchbook, 1958.

________. Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses. Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna

Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

________. The Moment and Late Writings ‐ "the Changelessness of God". Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 1998.

________. The Moment and Late Writings ‐ Newspaper Articles (1854‐1855) "There the

Matter Rests". Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.

________. The Moment and Late Writings ‐ the Moment No. 1 ‐ "Was Bishop Mynster a

'Truth Witness'?". Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998.

________. The Moment and Late Writings ‐ the Moment No. 5 ‐ "Beware of Those Who Like

to Go About in Long Robes!" (Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46). Princeton N.J.: Princeton

University Press, 1998.

________. The Moment and Late Writings ‐ the Moment No. 8 ‐ "Tremble ‐ Because in One

Sense It Is So Infinitely Easy to Fool God!". Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University

Press, 1998.

Martens, Paul, and Tom Millay. "'The Changelessness of God' as Kierkegaard's Final

Theodicy: God and the Gift of Suffering." International Journal of Systematic

Theology 13, no. 2 (2011): 170‐189.

McWilliams, Warren. "Only the Triune God Can Help: The Relation of the Trinity to

Theodicy." Perspectives in Religious Studies 33, no. 3 (2006): 345‐359.



Polk, Timothy. "Kierkegaard and the Book of Job: Theodicy or Doxology?" Word & World

31, no. 4 (2011): 409‐416.

Surin, Kenneth. "Theodicy." Harvard Theological Review 76, no. 2 (1983): 225‐247.

Tilley, Terrence W. "The Use and Abuse of Theodicy." Horizons 11, no. 2 (1984): 304‐319.

_______________________________________________

About the Author: Kathy L. McFarland is a Becker Bible Studies Teacher and Author of Guided Bible Studies for Hungry Christians. She has received her Bachelor of Science degree in Religious Studies from Liberty University, and is currently seeking her Master of Divinity (Professional Ministries Track) degree from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary & Graduate School. Kathy's favorite studies include the connections between Old Testament exegesis, Christian Apologetics, and Bible typology and mysteries.

Documents

Philosophy Kierkegaard!