Thanks for your feedback. A week ago I would have substantially given the same answer to the question that you have, and used the same NT passage of scripture that you quoted. Today, I would still give the answer you have, but I’m thinking about it. Tomorrow I will probably give the same answer, but maybe not.
”I form light and I create darkness; I make peace and I create evil; I am Yahweh; I do all these things.”
(Isaiah 45:7, LSB)
I’m currently reading a book which is discussing theodicy - “reconciling God and religion in the face of evil.”
(David Birnbaum, God and Evil: A Jewish Perspective, p. 3)
The author reviews a large number of historical responses to ”the problem of evil,” primarily from the varied Jewish perspectives, but also from the perspective of other religious systems of theological thought (e.g. Christianity, with it’s varied thought on the subject down through the centuries, and Eastern religions.) He doesn’t find any of them intellectually satisfying and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. Naturally, he offers another explanation for his readers to consider. In it he draws from Jewish and Christian sources to create a theological formulation “to handle all challenges satisfactorily to be truly viable!” He calls this proposed united theodicy “Quest for Potential“ Core Theology.
It is premised on God’s name (Exodus 3:13-14), free will and the potential of both God and man. He’s cautious about using Jewish Mysticism but he borrows from it - which, fwiw, doesn’t sit well with me.
”For the infinite God of Israel is a God of willed potential.
Holy potential is more than human potential writ large. ‘To whom will you liken Me that I shall equal?’ (Isaiah 40:25, cf. 46:5). Holy potential transcends time, space and the cosmos. … Independent of time, matter, and energy, and indeed, independent of a universe, existed Holy Divine Potential - the primordial Divine.”
(Ibid., pp. 65, 66)
The author notes “The concept of a primordial Divine has clear and direct precedent in the concept of the En Sof of Kabbalah.”
(Ibid., p. 66)
”… where the overwhelming thrust of classic Western philosophy is linear (i.e., A caused B caused C), our formulation is circular, with embedded potentialities providing the crucial supports and linkages.“
(Ibid., pp. 71,72)
So there is the point of departure. I’m personally steeped in classic Western philosophy on this point.
”An already infinite God inexorably seeks His own potentialities, as difficult as this concept may be for the finite to comprehend.”
(Ibid., p. 73.
The concept of man having potential / potentialities is easy to get the mind around. The concept of the same being the case with God is something else altogether. Does it have merit? I think perhaps it does.
The author quotes Abraham Heschel, and that is what lead me to post this thread:
”God is in need of man for the attainment of His ends.”
That seems like a reasonable thought to me.